Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 40 - FINAL

High Flo,w Sicen;ario(60 .'D~O;O b,srrels/d,ay) .. Thro;uigh July 2.
7 (Day 99)
008318
'. All units in barrels. Glic,k raw .Iabel for
rnon~
information.
008319
Oil Budget Tool Access - Additional NOAA

First Name
Troy
Last Name
Baker
Email
troy.baker
Category
Reader
008320
Oil Budget Tool

First Name
Brad
Dean
Mary
Doug
Charlie
Jim
Liz
Steve
Ed
Jason
Josh
Jordan
John
John
Ruth
William
Frank
Last Name
Benggio
Dale
Gill
Helton
Henry
Jeansonne
Jones
Lehmann
Levine
Rolfe
Slater
Stout
Tarpley
Whitney
Vender
Whitmore
Csulak
Email
Acct Group
brad.benggio@noaa.gov Reader
dean.dale@noaa.gov
mary.gill@noaa.gov
doug. helton@noaa.gov
charlie.henry@noaa.gov
jim.jeansonne@noaa.gov
elizabeth .jones@noaa.gov
steve.lehmann@noaa.gov
ed.levine@noaa.gov
jason. rolfe@noaa.gov
joshua .slater@noaa.gov
jordan.stout@noaa.gov
john .tarpley@noaa.gov
john. whitney@noaa.gov
ruth.yender@noaa.gov
william.whitmore@noaa.gov
frank.csulak@noaa.gov
008321
EUSGS
science for a changing world
Deepwater Horizon NC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Low Flow Rate, Maximum Removal - Through June 20
Discharged
RecoVeredviaRITTand T()pHat .
......
....
1,510,000.00
35,000.00
291,312.00
'23i290~00
..316;693:6~ ..
pis,persed Ni3.turaJiy
Ev~porated6"'Di~solyed
...1';551:);57
.. 1;59Roa
Available for Recovery
538,489.51
8,555.35
Dispersant Used
25,621.79
792.17
Remaining
-51,582.34
-7,161.03
* All units in barrels.
1,500,000
1,250,000
en
1,000,000
CI)
750,000
CO
.c
500,000
250,000
0
30-Apr
1-
15-May
Total Released -
30-May
Total Remaining
14-Jun
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 06/24/201001 :08 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
008322
EUSGS
Deepwater Horizon NC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

High Flow Rate, Minimum Removal .. Through June 20
9,934.44
23,430.63
.1;133.50
Dispersant Used
25,621.79
792.17
Remaining
1,276,904.55
18,104.23
.. All units in barrels.
2,500,000
2,000,000
fA
11)
..a
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
30-Apr
15-May
1- Total Released -
30-May
Total Remaining
14-Jun

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 06/24/2010 01 :08 PM MDT.
008323

Executive Summary (Mean Values) - Through July 05 (Day 77)
Discharged
2,797,500.00
45,000.00
12,233.30
1;351.40
Dispersant Used
32,560.71
296.48
Remaining
670,898.00
6,444.20
* All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 07/06/2010 08:03 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements.
008324

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 07/06/2010 08:03 AM MDT.
008325
Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports come from the low and high estimates determined by the
Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon incident. Discharge rates are adjusted
over time in the data behind the application based on analyses by the FRTG of changing dynamics in
the incident (e.g., severing the riser).
-Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
-Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut.
-Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values.
Note: Refer to the section on Leakage in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a full discussion of
the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
The current oil budget calculation uses a different range of discharge rates for the start of the incident
through June 3 when the riser was cut and then after that time:
-Start of incident through June 3 - 20,000 to 40,000 bbl/day
-After June 3 - 35,000 to 60,000 bbVday
The cumulative total in the executive summary and the "Disposition of Oil" graph are calculated using
the mean of the discharge range (45,000 bbl/day after June 3).
Recovered via RITT and Top Hat

RITT and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
spill flow. Values for the amount recovered are reported by BP, entered daily by National Incident
Command personnel, and used in the calculation of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of all
daily values entered.
Dispersed Naturally
Natural oil dispersion is estimated using the methods described in this annotation and background
documentation. The following assumptions and factors apply:
-Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed
-No natural surface dispersion assumed
-Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
Natural subsurface dispersion is a calculation of the total discharge minus a calculation of subsurface
chemical dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural dispersion effectiveness derived from a scientific
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 07/06/201008:03 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. 'Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
008326
method of determining oil dispersion in the water column. A higher factor is used for the "Maximum
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed." See background documentation for
more information.
Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas (link) document for a full
discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
Evaporated or Dissolved
Evaporation and dissolution occur naturally with oil on the surface. This element in the report is the
result of a scientific calculation using the methods described in this annotation and background
-Evaporation formulas include dissolution as well
-Largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
-Most evaporative losses occur during the first 24 hours
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference in this rate. The
evaporation/dissolution calculation first determines the remaining oil available for evaporative processes
by removing the following from the total discharge:
-Measured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat
-Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
-Reported amount of oil burned
-The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific research and
current observations conducted on the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Note: Refer to the section on Evaporated and Dissolved Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document
for a full discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the remaining oil after removing
the following from the total discharge:
-Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution

008327
Skimmed
Skimmed oil is a rough calculation based on the daily reported amount of oily water multiplied by a
factored estimation of net oil content. The net oil factor is different for the Maximum and Minimum
Removal scenarios.
-The skimmed oil estimate is very rough
-The actual amount of skimmed oil should ultimately be based on actual measurement
Note: Refer to the section on Skimmed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a discussion of
this calculation.
Burned
Total burned values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel and used in daily and
cumulative totals.
-American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) burn rate standards are used
-Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil
Note: Refer to the section on Burning Losses in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a discussion
of the methodology used in this calculated measurement.
Chemically Dispersed
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scientific calculation based on the amount of chemical
dispersant applied and recorded daily and acting on both surface and subsurface oil. The following
assumptions and factors apply:
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
as estimate for successful chemical dispersant application
Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a full

008328
Dispersant Used
The amount of dispersant used is recorded each day of the incident by National Incident Command
personnel. It is an actual measurement of the total dispersant used via all methods employed.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 07/061201008:03 AM MDT.
008329

High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 26 (Day 98)

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the u.s. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
008330

Cumulative Remaining
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
fI)
( I)
a..
a..
1,000,000
CIS
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
1- Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds 1

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
008331

Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day)
Through July 26 (Day 98)
All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident 011 Budget

008332
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 26 (Day 98)

700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
f/)
CD
400,000
a..
a..
as 350,000
.Q
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000.
100,000
50,000
May-2010
1- Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds

008333
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining of the Surface

The volume of oil that each day is added to the volume of oil already on the surface is computed taking
into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via the Top Hat), and the
volume that is evaporated or dissolved, skimmed, burned, or dispersed (either chemically or naturally).
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-252 - Cumulative Disposition of Oil

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
released over time based on low and high discharge estimates, the relative amounts of oil recovered or
dispersed by both natural and management methods, and the total remaining oil calculated by the oil
budget model. The values used in the chart come from the calculations in a statistical model and
correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in the Web application by
clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations and further
reference material.
Discharged
Background
On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was
announced. The most likely flow rate of oil is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day. This
improved estimate is based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut -- data which
helps increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy of the estimate. As the Government continues
008334
to collect additional data and refine these estimates, it is important to realize that the numbers can
change. In particular, because the upper number is less certain, it is important to plan for the upper
estimate plus additional contingencies immediately.

spill flow. Values for the amount recovered by the vessels Helix Producer, Discoverer Enterprise and
the Q4000 are reported by BP, entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
calculation of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of aU daily values entered.
Dispersed Naturally
more information.
documentation. The following assumptions and.factors apply:

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
008335
by removing the following from the totEd discharge:
-Measured amount removed via RIIT and Top Hat

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.s. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
008336
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Volume of oil remaining after other known volume totals are removed from the total discharged.

OIL BUDGET (Best Estimate) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5/12/2010
. . Dispersed Naturally 110,434

500
(Su rface~_~_~_~~~_~f~~!:U _____________________________________ _
- - - : . . - - - .................. - - - - - - - - .......... - - - " . - - - . . .
10% by volume of surface oil
Evaporated
.~<7.~ 7~:~7:':'0:~~t~TI;~,7i;:~:)7.77::-:-:; .~:.T.~ -:- ~
fo(.mtJ.\'~il~IjI;~'tot:R~c(Jverv
.....;;.;..:;;.. ...;.;,.'i.;, ...,;.;>~;~~' ~::.. !,;;..;:,;.:.:.....:. ~.~ ~ __ .;.,
i,
1,500
31,301
.'-:".;-:-"'-, ~ ,7: -:7 ~:7,'~~.T:'~,~ ::~~--:- ~
66,266, ,}.
-+..; ..' . ~~O()Q'
--:. .
. ....:...!.;,.'.-:...
;.''';'; _....;. .. ~ _
~.,;;
,,
9,150
11165
/
~-.- ~.~
2,700
10% of water collected is oil
Based on surface area and thickness calculations

on site before burning
709
Surface: oil dispersed dispersant X 3

Surface: dispersant impacts 25% of treatable oil
Subsurface: oil dispersed dispersant X 5
5% of oily solid waste is oil
1 bbl = 42 gals
Notes:
1) 12 May morning UAC brief reported 27.6K bbls skimmed, highest amount skimmed in a single day to date.
2) Assumptions vetted through the Interagency Solutions Group and will be updated with new information/developments
Produced by National Incident Command
008337
Dispers~dChemically
(Surface & Subsurface)
30% per volume of available surface oil
008338

Government Estimates - Through August 11 (Day 114)
All unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62,200 bbl on April 22. 2010 to 52,700 bbl on July 14, 2010.
Remaining* _ _~
26%
Direct Recovery
,..----- from Well Head
17%
Burned
S%
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
Dispersed
Evaporated
or Dissolved
25%
8%
--~
Naturally
' - - - - - - Dispersed
16%
Remaining oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balis, has been biodegraded, or has
alread come ashore.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 08/12/2010 10:06 AM MDT
Application operated by the USCG and provided by the USGS with calculations from NOAA and NIST.
008339

Jul-2010
Aug-2010
~----------------------------------------~
Expected Value -
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 08/12/201010:06 AM MDT
Application operated by the USCG and provided by the USGS with calculations from NOAA and NIST.
008340
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining on the

Surface
The volume of oil that each day is added to the volume of oil already on the surface is computed, taking
into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via the Riser Insertion tool
or the Top Hat), and the volume that is evaporated or dissolved, skimmed, burned, or dispersed (either
chemically or naturally).
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-2S2 - Oil Budget

The Oil Budget pie chart provides a representation of the total amount of oil released over time for the
actual government estimates of discharge as well as a higher flow and lower flow estimate, the relative
amounts of oil recovered or dispersed by both natural and management method~, and the total
remaining oil calculated by the oil budget model. The values used in the chart come from the
calculations in a statistical model and correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See end notes
for further information on the individual calculations.
Discharged
On July 31, 2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with
determining the flow of oil from BP's leaking well refined their estimates of the oil flow. The teams
estimated that the discharge rates ranged from 62,000 bbl/day at the start of the incident to 53,000
bbllday when the well was capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor
in the best government estimate was used to create a Higher Flow Estimate and a Lower Flow Estimate
report in the Oil Budget Tool.
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 20-21 ),
the estimate begins on April 22, 2010. In general, the discharge rate trended down over time due to
decreasing reservoir pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day
45), resulted in an estimate of discharge increase of approximately 4%. Placement of the containment
cap on July 12 (Day 84) resulted in a flow decrease of approximately 4%
Previous Fixed Flow Rate

Previous versions of the Oil Budget Tool used a constant low and high flow estimate based on
estimations from the Flow Rate Technical Group Plume Team PIV measurements. This method was
chosen at the time as the best available process and because the same measurement method was
used pre- and post-riser cut. On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from
the leaking BP well was announced. The most likely flow rate of oil at that time was estimated between
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 08/12/2010 10:06 AM MDT
Application operated by the USCG and provided by the USGS with calculations from NOM and NIST.
008341
35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day. This improved estimate was based on more and better data that
was available after the riser cut -- data which helped increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy
of the estimate at that time.
Recovered via RIIT and Top Hat

calculation of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of all daily values entered.
Dispersed Naturally
Natural subsurface dispersion calculates the total discharge minus an estimation of subsurface
method of determining oil dispersion in the water column.
-Evaporation formulas include dissolution
-Evaporation is the largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
Evaporation is calculated differently for lIfresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
for the cumulative total over time. Different facto.rs are used to represent the difference in this rate. The
-Measured amount removed via RITT andTop Hat
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget generated by mark.w .miller@noaa.gov on 08/12/2010 10:06 AM MDT
008342

Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skirrlmed
factored estimation of net oil content in oily water.
Burned
cumulative totals.
-American Society for Testing and lIIIaterials (ASTM) burn rate standards are used
Dispersant Used
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 08112/2010 10:06 AM MDT
008343
Oil Remaining
Credits
The Oil Budget Calculator is owned by the U.S. Coast Guard as an operational tool and developed and
managed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with oil behavior scientists from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and statisticians from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
Personal Credits
-LTUg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
-David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) - Application development and engineering
-Rebecca Uribe (USGS) - Graphic design
-Bill Lehr (NOAA) - Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (N 1ST) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffman, CDR Sean O'Brien, and LT Amy McElroy (USCG)
- Application requirements and user stories
-Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) - Project vision and management
-Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond (USGS) - Executive sponsors
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 08/12/2010 10:06 AM MDT
008344
Paper ID # 210, 1999 International Oil Spill Conference
QUANTIFICATION OF NET ENVIRONMENTAL

BENEFIT FOR FUTURE OIL SPILLS
Tim Lunel
AEA Technology, National Environmental Technology Centre, Culham, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 3DB,
UK (e-mail: Tim.Lunel@aeat.co.uk).
jenifer M Baker
Clock Cottage, Church Street, Ruyton-XI-Towns, Shrewsbury SY4 i LA, UK
ABSTRACT: Net Environmental Benefit Analysis

(NEBA) is increasingly used as a framework to assess
the environmental benefits and disadvantages of a
chosen response action. This analysis can be used to
account for political and economic impacts as well as
the effects on the natural environment. Until recently
the discussion has focused on qualitative assessments
due to the lack of quantitative information collected at
spills. This paper uses examples of best practice of
NEBA from different spills around the world to outline
the information that should be collected at future spills
in order to determine the level of Net Environmental
Benefit that has been achieved by the response
operation. in the first instance immediate foedback may
well provide information which aids decision making at
the time of the incident. However, a key role for this
information is also to enable responders around the
world to establish best practice for a wide range of
environmental sensitivities. Case histories of Net
Environmental Benefits will provide a basis for the
overall contingency planning process, recognising that
post-spill decisions are best and most rapidly made in
the light of pre-spill analyses, consultations and
agreements by all the appropriate organisations.
Introduction
Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEB A) means
weighing the advantages and disadvantages of different
oil spill responses and comparing them with the
advantages and disadvantages of natural cleanup. This
approach, as a concept, has been widely recognised as
useful for response planning. Its usefulness can be
enhanced if advantages and disadvantages can be
quantified. This paper Considers the available
information and identifies areas where more information
would be particularly beneficial.
One approach to quantification is to look at whole
case histories but in reality, most spills are inadequately
documented for NEBA analyses. In particular, it is not
surprising that quantitative data about the relationships
between response methods and mass balances are few it is notoriously difficult to measure the outcomes of
individual response methods during the intense activity
following a spill. However, it has been possible to make
some assessment of the Exxon Valdez, the Braer, and
the Sea Empress incidents.
Another approach is to draw together existing
information from experimental projects, each of which
gives a partial picture but which give a broader picture
when combined. For example (with respect to the water
column) information from field experiments on oil
concentrations under variously treated slicks can be

used together with laboratory toxicity test information
on the sensitivity of plankton or fish larvae. However, it
is important to calibrate the experimental information
against real spill conditions.
. This paper will firstly describe the different levels of
decision making (strategic, tactical and operational)
where NEBA is a useful approach to adopt. It will then
describe methods that can be used to calculate a net oil
budget and how these can be linked to the sensitivity of
the resources impacted in order to provide a quantified
NEBA. Finally, illustrations are provided on how these
methods can be used at the strategic, tactical and
operational level.
Different levels of NEBA
It is proposed that NEBA can be applied at three main

levels, which correspond to the tiered approach to oil
spill response (IPIECA 1991) and more particularly to
the associated levels of sensitivity map - operational,
tactical and strategic (IMOIIPIECA 1996). The tiered
response approach distinguishes the following types of
spill:
Tier 1. Small localised spills at fixed installations (such
as oil terminals);
Tier 2. Medium sized spills, possibly some way from
industry facilities and potentially having a greater
impact on the environment;
Tier 3. Major accidents (e.g. collisions, explosions or
blowouts) causing spills of thousands oftonnes and
having the potential for causing considerable
environmental damage over a wide area.
It follows that uses of both sensitivity maps and
NEBA range from practical site-specific shore
protection and clean-up, to strategic planning on a
regional scale for major accidents in remote areas:
Strategic NEBA applies, for example, when a slick is at
sea and strategic decisions have to made as whether to
monitor and take no further action, to recover the oil at
sea, to disperse the oil, or to let the oil strand on the
shoreline and remove the oil from the beach.
Tactical NEBA is appropriate, for example, once the oil
has come into near-shore waters or a bay when it is
necessary to make decisions about which areas of
coastline to protect and which to use as sacrificial
beaches.
Operational NEBA can be used by responders in order
to decide whether it is appropriate to clean a particular
area of oiled coastline and how vigorous the clean up
should be.
By definition, a Tier I spill should involve decision
making at the operational (or at most tactical) NEBA
008345
level. However, especially in the case of a Tier 3 spill, it

is likely that different levels of NEB A will be applicable
at different stages during the response. For example,
when a large spill occurs many miles offshore a
strategic level NEBA would be appropriate, taking into
account the important resources in all the possible
directions that the oil slicks may travel. At a later stage
in the spill oil may have moved close to a particular
shoreline type, or be stranded on it, and there will be a
need for detailed operational NEBA for that particular
area At each of these stages in a single Tier 3 spill, Net
Environmental Benefit Analysis can be used to guide
decision making.
The process of NEBA quantification
Quantification of NEBA involves consideration of

how different response methods affect:
Net Oil Budget: the CHANGE in partitioning of oil
between different environmental components such as
various shore types, subtidal sediments, the water
column, or complete loss through natural degradation as
a result of human intervention.
Net Environmental Impacts: the CHANGE in short and
long-term outcomes for biota in different environmental
components as a result of the NET oil budget.
NET ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
QUANTIFIED NET ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Calculating a net oil budget

The calculation of oil budgets for real spills by their
very nature contain assumptions and approximations,
the calculation of a Net oil budget will contain
additional assumptions on the extent to which the
response operation has altered the oil budget.
The process of obtaining the best estimate of a net oil
budget to measure the success of the response is
illustrated here with reference to best practice from a
range of spills.
Volume of oil spilt. The first stage in the process is to
establish the volume of oil released. This in itself is
often not a straightforward process and requires
information from a variety of sources such as: tank dips;
ship's cargo and fuel gauges, remote sensing
(qualitative information); pipeline pumping rates,
pipeline volume; and duration of release.
Atmosphere. Evaporation has a profound effect on
the way oil behaves, by encouraging the formation of a
North Sea Captain Spill, August 1997:

Heavy Fuel Oil component of Sea Empress, February 1996:
Braer, January 1993 (Gullfaks):
Exxon Valdez, March 1989 (Alaskan North Slope):
Sea Empress, February 1996 (Forties Blend):
Idoho Pipeline spill, January 1998 (Nigerian Light):
persistent water-in-oil emulsion. It also reduces the

acute (short-timescale) toxicity of the oil remaining on
the sea surface since the most toxic components are lost
to the atmosphere. The total percentage of the crude oil
which is lost by evaporation is largely governed by its
composition and is not affected to a significant degree
by the response measures employed. The environmental
conditions, such as low temperatures, or response
options, for example dispersing the oil into the water
column, can affect the rate of evaporation.
An estimate of the volume of oil evaporated at an
incident can be derived from an oil specific weathering
study. These should be conducted in advance of spill so
that the information is available to help guide response
strategy at the time of a spill. The following illustrates
the range in percentage of the spilt oil evaporating
which has been predicted using oil specific weathering
studies:
0.2-0.5%
2-5%
20-25%
20-30%
35-45%
35-45%
008346
However, oil weathering studies will only provide a

prediction of the volume of oil lost by evaporation. The
best estimate of the volume of oil evaporated can be
obtained by taking surface samples of the oil (a
minimum of 5 samples) during the incident itself and
determining the composition of the oil remaining on the
sea surface relative to the crude oil spilt initially. In the
Sea Empress, 8 samples which had been on the surface
for between 9 and 37 hours, and showed that 35-45% of

the volume of the oil had evaporated. A high level of
confidence could be placed in these estimates because
the samples obtained during the incident itself could be
related to detailed measurements made during iii sea trial
with the same oil type (Forties Blend crude oil) under
similar meteorological conditions (Figure I):
.1'0
..
....
II
..e
~o
!tl
lit
-II
It
.a
10
10
..
.~
)",.~ :
x
x
-)(
~Ic_. ,,'__
._,r
.,
)C
Sea l!.mpreS$ samples
field trWumples - Fomes Blend

mldc oil rclcucd in the North Sea
in 30 knot winds
o+o----------~---------I~o--------~u--Eb--p-s~--Um--e-1O~---------r--------~30--------~35
(hDurs)
Figure 1. Evaporation of Forties Blend showing Sea Empress samples and data collected during controlled
experiments in the North Sea.
Water surface. Initially the residue of the oil after

evaporation will remain on the sea surface. Over time
emulsification increases the volume on the water
surface and mechanical recovery, dispersion and
shoreline stranding reduces the volume.
Nearshore and shoreline. Following the Exxon
Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, Shoreline
Cleanup Assessment Teams (SCAT) carried out much
more shore assessment than has been done for any other
spill, as a basis for making decisions about cleanup
techniques. The standardised methods developed have
subsequently been used as a model for other spills (an
example is Environment Canada's Field Guide to the
Documentation and Description of Oiled Shorelines,
Owens and Sergy 1994). SCAT objectives were
assessment of the presence, distribution, and amount of
surfilce and subsurface oil, and provision of information
needed to make environmentally sound decisions on
cleanup techniques (bearing in mind previous
experience with different types of shore). The oiling
assessment included estimates of surface oiling length,
width, thickness, % oil distribution and oil character;
and subsurface oil concentration, character, thickness
and depth of penetration of the oiled layer. One of the
many conclusions was that the combined oil cover for
the Sound study sites dropped from 46% of the total
observed area in May 1989, to 39% in August 1989, to

12% by January 1990, and to less than 2% by
September 1990 (Owens 1991). It was possible to relate
these losses to both the beach cleaning programme and
to natural removal.
The need to establish good practice world-wide is
emphasised by the fact that 7 years on at the Sea
Empress spill, the lessons from the Exxon Valdez spill
were not implemented and one of the findings wes that
the shoreline surveys were planned outside of the
response operation and were not completed in sufficient
time to be of use to the immediate cleanup operation.
This is contrary to American experience which has
shown that a methodology can be fully integrated with
cleanup operations, as the name Shoreline Clean-up
Assessment Team (SCAT) implies. Consequently, the
UK is in the process of adopting SCAT compatible
survey forms which for operational requirements are
being simplified but will include the basic information
ofimpacted area dimensions, oil thickness and oil type.
Sea bed. The main mechanism for incorporation of a
significant volume of oil in the sea bed is interaction
between sediment suspended in nearshore waters and
dispersed oil.
Other mechanisms such as
biosedimentation through the packaging of dispersed oil
in the form of copepod faecal pellets have also been
008347
suggested but are not likely to result in high local

concentration with a significant environmental impact.
Dispersed oil in the water column is buoyant and will
have a tendency to rise back to the surface in the
absence of the mixing processes which keep the small
170 IJ,m droplets suspended in the water column.
Dispersed oil will not sink unless it becomes associated
with suspended sediment.
In waters with high sediment loads (generally in
estuaries or bays) it is important to mount a sediment
monitoring programme which defines the level and
extent of sediment contamination. One of the most
detailed studies of subtidal sediments was that following
the No 2 fuel oil spill from the barge Florida in
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, 1969 (Sanders et al.
1980). Results from a grab-sampling programme
showed a range of sediment oil concentrations up to
about 400 ppm, and the faunal changes observed could
be correlated with the severity of oiling. In the case of
the 1977 Tsesis spill in the Baltic, estimates from
sediment trap data indicated that at least 20 tonnes of oil
(equivalent to 0.5 gm per square meter) reached the
bottom (Johansson et al. 1980).
In open water oil spills, association of dispersed oil
with sediment is not a major transport pathway for the
oil. An exception to this was the open water oil spill at
the Braer incident. The severe storm conditions at the
Braer oil spill in January 1993 (with winds gusting to
70 knots) meant that the resuspended sediment load in
the coastal waters off Shetland was particularly high at
the time of the spill, more typical of the levels fonnd in
an estuarine environment. The post spill sediment
monitoring found two major areas where oil
contaminated fine sediments had settled out into
sedimentary basins (ESGOSS 1994). The sampling
indicated that up to 30% of the oil spilt ended up in
these deep water sediment sinks.
As a result of the Braer experience responders have
become sensitised to the possibility of dispersed oil
becoming associated with sediments. Therefore, it is
likely in many spills that some initial modelling/analysis
of potential sedimentation areas will be required
followed initially by a limited sediment sampling survey
which can be expanded if sediment bound oil is found
by the monitoring survey.
Water column. Since dispersed and soluble
components of the oil dilute rapidly over a large volume
it is not possible to obtain an accurate of the volume of
oil partitioning into the water column. This component,
therefore has to be calculated by difference (subtracting
the percentage of oil in each of the other components
from the total volume spilt) in most spills.
In the Sea Empress, fluorometry measurements at sea
showed that dispersion was Significant in determining
the fate of the spilt oil (Lunel et ai, 1996; 1997).
However, the rapid dilution of the dispersed oil together
with the large volume over which the oil was distributed
means that it is difficult to accurately quantifY the
dispersed oil budget. Subtracting the volume
evaporated, the volume recovered at sea, and the
volume stranded on the shoreline from the total budget
suggests that 4659"A. of the oil dispersed through a
combination of natural and enhanced dispersion.
Distinguishing between natural and chemical
dispersion. Since chemical dispersion is enhancing the
rate of the naturally occurring dispersion process,
separating the effects of these two components requires
intensive fluorometry measuring oil concentration.

However, the need to implement in situ monitoring to
determine the effectiveness of dispersant operations is
now being more generally accepted by both National
Governments and Industry. The information required
fur operational efficiency is the key to providing the
data required to assess the relative significance of
natural and chemical dispersion processes. However it is
necessary to collect quantitative information on oil
concentration to make these assessments, the
monitoring carried out in the Gulf of Mexico in January
1998 at the High Island Pipeline (Henry, 1998a) and
MJV Red Seagull (Henry, 1998b) was qualitative in
nature and could not therefore be used to estimate the
relative significance of natural and chemical dispersion.
At the Sea Empress incident, intensive monitoring
implemented for the first time at a major spill allowed
an estimate to be made of the split between natural and
enhanced dispersion by comparing the concentrations of
dispersed oil at the incident with those in controlled
field trials (Lunel et al., 1996; 1997; SEEEC 1998):
Natural dispersion:
721%
Enhanced dispersion:
24-52%
On the basis of these estimates, the dispersant
operation increased the amount of oil dispersed by at
least 17,000 tonnes, with an estimated 27,000 tonnes
being dispersed in total. Since 446 tonnes of dispersant
were used, each tonne of dispersant resulted in an extra
60 tonnes of oil being dispersed (with a range of 3882
tonnes per tonne of dispersant).
Mechanical recovery. At sea recovery is rarely an
important route for removal of oil from the water
surface (ITOPF, 1991). Mechanical recovery also
normally results in the removal of a large volume of
water in addition to the oil, therefore, the recovery
operation must measure not only the total volume of the
recovered material but also its water content. Although
not a technically difficult operation, this information is
often not collected at an incident. For example, at the
Sea Empress it was reported that approximately 7,260
tonnes of liquid waste was recovered by skimming and
transferred to the Texaco refinery. However only one
qualitative estimate was made of the water content of
this liquid waste: on the 23 February during the transfer
of 192 tonnes of oil/water, the recovered material was
described as 85% water. Therefore, in constructing the
mass balance a value of ]020% oil was used for all the
liquid waste recovered at sea which suggests that 12%
of the total spilt was recovered. At future spills a
minimum of5 spot samples of the water content of any
mechanically recovered oily water would be valuable in
providing an accurate estimate of the volume
mechanically recovered. This information would not
only be useful in a net environmental benefit analysis
but also in assessing the cost effectiveness of the
response.
Net oil budget. In order to quantifY the benefits a
particular response strategy it is firstly necessary to use
the methods described above to quantifY the change in
physical partitioning of the oil that II response strategy is
likely to put in place. Table 1 below shows the actual
mass balance determined at the Braer (ESGOSS, 1994).
Sea Empress (Lunel et. aI. 1997; SEEEC 1998) and
Exxon Valdez (Galt et aI. 1991; Wolfe et. a1. 1993) spills
and the likely mass balance in the absence of response
operations:
008348
Table 1. The crude oil mass balance for the Sea Empress, the Braer and the Exxon Valdez spills after the first stage
response at sea and on the shoreline compared with the estimated mass balance if no response had been carried out.
':OjI1!i!ftiiio#(~!(f'N::';"::
;i;,::' ;'. ::;i~j!Jtaer'1~~3\::;; ',,;' ~.j lis'~~~f1fl)j~~t~~?~~),,: '. :1:'EXm~ra~deZJ?~~9;;:
:~::;i:~:~S:::;:i~n!::~:~~e~~e ,t A~~fii':',;;~esponse';~:AiJiilij ;'~t:Voifik1~e ;j~~tlJ'
Atmosphere
Nearshore or shoreline
Seabed
Water column
Chemically dispersed
Mechanically recovered at sea
20-25
0
20-30
45-60
0
0
20-25
0
20-30
45-60
0
0
By comparing the actual mass balance with the mass

balance that is estimated in the absence of a response
operation it is possible to derive the Net Oil Budget for
these 3 spills as indicated in table 2. The change in
partitioning as a result of the response is expressed both
35-45
5-7
35-45
34-58
20-30
22-51
Niresponse"
20-30
26-59
46-59
24-52
1-3
7-21
20-25
20-25
4-8
as percentage of the total mass balance and by the

relative significance of the change in partitioning
relative to the natural process (Le. the ratio between the
partitioning estimated following a response and the
partitioning estimated had there been no response)
Table 2. The Net Oil Budget crude oil mass balance for the Sea Empress, the Braer and the Exxon Valdez spills in
terms of both the total % of oil spilt and the significance relative to the natural partitioning at the incident.
::~et'Oit~~llget (~kJ .> ::Percelitilgep(total;'Signiticancc' relative.. ,:rbee.....ectoi'therespome.

..
Braer 1993
Exxon Valdez, 1989
Sea Empress, 1996
.... '.budget . ..'

0
4-8 %
27-53 %
25-52 %
".
tooatiJraLjlliffitioning: , ......... ,
".
...
0
None - Fate governed by natural processes
1.2-1.4 fold
Slight reduction in the volume of oil
stranding on the shoreline
5-11 fold
Significant reduction in the volume of oil
stranding on the shoreline
2-8 fold
Significant increase in volume of oil
partitioned into the water column
The greatest effect on the partitioning of the oil fate is

demonstrated at the Sea Empress spill. The volume
impacting nearshore and shore line resources was
reduced by 5-11 fold while the volume partitioned into
the water column was increased by 2-8 fold. Hence, this
spill is used in the section on strategic net
environmental benefit to indicate how the quantitative
net oil budget can be linked to the environmentally
sensitive resources that benefit or suffer from the
response operation. But first it is necessary to provide a
framework under which to link this quantitative net oil
budget to the environmental impacts of a spill.
Net environmental impact
In order to make use of this net oil budget information

in decision-making, the predicted change in oil
partitioning must be linked to the likely impacts on the
resources at risk. In most cases, it is unrealistic to look
for fully quantitative biological studies for the purposes
of NEBA. Such studies would be costly and lengthy,
partly because:
natural variables (both spatial and temporal) would have
to be taken into account, because these exert the primary
control over species distribution and abundance;
the marine environment is in a constant state of change,
and natural fluctuations need to be distinguished from
pollution effects;
Therefore, despite the limitations associated with
using data which is not site-specific to the area
potentially at risk from oiling, a broad environmental
sensitivity classification taking into account the inherent
sensitivity of the resource at risk will be of benefit in
determining the likely net environmental impacts of
different response options both at the contingency

planning stage and the spill response.
Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI)

With respect to shore lines, the basic principles are that
sensitivity to oi I increases with increasing shelter of the
shore from wave action, penetration of oil into the
substratum, natural oil retention times on the shore, and
biological productivity of shore organisms. For the
purposes of sensitivity mapping (IMOIIPIECA, 1996)
shores are ranked using these principles, often using a
10 point scale known as an environmental sensitivity
index (ESI). The typical range is from ESI I (exposed
rocky shores, lowest sensitivity to ESI 10 (marshes and
mangroves, highest sensitivity).
Other ecological resources at risk include coral reefs,
seagrass and kelp beds, and wildlife such as turtles,
seabirds and mammals. From the socio-economic point
of view both commercial and subsistence fishing need
to be considered, for example fishing areas, shellfish
beds, fish and crustacean nursery areas, fish traps and
aquaculture facilities. Other features include boat
facilities such as harbours and slipways, industrial water
intakes, recreational resources such as amenity beaches,
and sites of cultural or historical significance. While
emphasising that the specific circumstances of the spill
could change the sensitivity rankings markedly, we
propose the following broad sensitivity rankings as an
extension from the rankings proposed by Michel and
Dahlin (1993) for shorelines. The basis of these
qualitative rankings are broadly on the basis of likely
recovery times although some consideration has also
been given to economic impacts:
008349
:SeDsiti~ty,'
I. Least
2.ww
3.ww
4. Medium
5. Medium
6. Medium
7. Medium
8. High
. Sensltlvlhes
. I W'ldl'fi
E conomlc
T a bl e 3 SummaryofE coIOElca
I
I e an d SOClo-
"j
1,';:E(!i1[iJlic.l',;"i;~i;C:;"'"":,;";,, : "Wildlife' '";,,,:( i,:,:' i/",':;:", ':Sbci{;.;e~oDomic '.
Exposed steep rock

Open sea water surface
Open sea water column
Exposed rock platforms
Offshore sediments
Fine grained firm sand
Mediumcoarse sand
Mixed coarse sediments
Nearshore water surface
Nearshore water column
Gravel, boulders, cobble
Exposed tidal flats
Nearshore sediments
Kelp beds
Deeper coral reef zones
Sheltered rock
Subtidal seagrass beds
Sheltered tidal flats
Intertidal seagrass beds
,"
Offshore fish stocks

LDcaI amenity beaches
OftShore dolvhins and whales
CulturaIlhistorical sites
Riprap/gabions
Marinas
Water intakes
Nearshore seals, dolphins and

Whales
Estuaries for migrating
shorebirds*
Seal haulouts
Turtle beaches'"
Seabird colonies*
Otters
Fish breeding and nursery

areas'"
9. High
Nearshore shellfish
Seabed aquaculture
Nearshore fishing gear
10. Highest
Mangroves
Intertidal shellfish
Marshes
Intertidal and upper water
Shallow coral reef zones
column aquaculture
Intertidal fish traps
Key amenity/tourist beaches*
Politically sensitive sites
...
'" Indicates that the senSitIVIty of the resource may differ markedly at dIfferent times of year
This overview is based upon extensive case history experience; more information is available in IPlECA (1991a, 1992,
1993a, 1994, 1995, 1997) and IMOllPlECA (1996). However, it needs to be reviewed whenever possible in the light of
new case history experience.
It must be emphasised this is a generalised ranking of
sensitivities to oiling, EST rankings must be determined
for the specific region under consideration taking into
account local, national and international priorities in the
contingency planning process. The ESI rankings should
not be solely driven by the measure of ecological
recovery times. Economic and political measures will be
key in the response operation itself and should be
factored into the EST ranking. For example, in Brunei
there are high priority areas of mangrove forest (ESI 10
on this classification) on the basis of ecological
sensitivity. However, there is a region of equal
sensitivity (Le. ESI 10) along the Brunei coast at the
location of the Palace of the Sultan of Oman. This is
clearly an appropriate ranking since the sensitivity of
this location will in the event of spill drive response
decisions. There are no right or wrong answers in the
classification of sensitivities. The important step in
planning and response is to identity what the
sensitivities are for that National or LDcal context and to
assign them an ESI ranking along the lines outlined
above.
Quantified net environmental benefit analysis

If the response techniques employed were all
potentially equally successful at preventing impacts on
the resources identified, then the ESI ranking could be
used directly to determine the protection priority.
However, not all response measures are will be equally
successful. Thus, account must be taken of the degree to
which the response option will change the partitioning
of the oil and hence change the degree of environmental
impact. The calculation of the potential net oil budget
allows a method of quantifYing the potential net
environmental impacts of different courses of action.

Choosing an appropriate n:sponse strategy on the basis
of this process is what is defined in this paper as
quantified NEBA.
For example, a spill of a dispersible crude oil in the
vicinity of a nearshore fish farm with tides advecting the
dispersed phase towards the facility, classified as ESI 9,
is likely to result in tainting of the fish by the natural
dispersion ofthe surface slick. Using dispersants might,
for example, be predicted to result in a net oil budget
with a 2-8 fold increase in oil partitioning into the water
column (as documented at the Sea Empress - see net oil
budget section). Increasing the exposure of the fish to
the dispersed oil is not likely to affect the marketability
of the fish significantly. In either case the fish will be
unmarketable due to taint. Therefore, it may be
appropriate to prevent or limit the level of oiling of a
cobble beach (classified here as ESI 6) which is also in
the potential impact zone at the expense of putting more
oil into the water column. Once oiled, cobble zones are
likely to be difficult to clean and oil may leach back into
nearshore waters over a long period of time to produce a
chronic oil pollution problem fur the region. Reducing
the volume of oil stranding on cobble zones, (for
example, by using dispersants the shoreline oiling was
reduced by 5-11 fold in the Sea Empress) can allow
natural clean up processes to remove the oil rapid Iy
from the shoreline or allow in situ techniques such as
surf washing and bioremediation to be considered.
Thus, an estimate of the net oil budget at the time of
the spill taking into account the potential effectiveness
of the response might give a higher protection priority
to an ESI 6 than and ESI 9. At another time of year,
008350
where for example where natural clean up over a winter

season is expected to remove oil stranding on an
exposed cobble beach, the decision might be taken to
attempt to protect the ESI 9 even though the chances of
success are low.
The importance of quantified net environmental
benefit analysis, even if some of the data is semiquantitative, is that it incorporates estimates of the
success of the response methods into decision making.
Data should be collected during the response
operation itself using the methods outlined in this paper,
firstly, to determine whether the assumptions made in
the quantified NEBA are holding so that the response
operation can be modified if necessary. Secondly, to
learn from spill experience to optimise response
strategies and techniques for future spills. Case histories
which are relevant to the area and the response methods
being assessed are key in osing NEBA in the
contingency planning process. The following 3 sections
outline the lessons learnt on strategic, tactical and
operational NEBA from monitoring carried out at real
spill incidents.
Strategic net environmental benefit analysis
ESI 6:
ESI 5:
ESI I:
ES( 7
ES] \0
(eg. Skrinkle Have, SEEEC 1998) stranded oil

contaminated nearshore sediments.
Reduced volume of oil stranding on the cobble beacbes
of Carmarthen Bay allowing a combination of natural
attenuation and in situ techniques to be used.
Carmarthen Bay nearshore waters, oil concentration in
mussels (key indicator species of nearshore oil
concentrations) were showo to be highest in those areas
of greatest shoreline oiling (Law et al. 1998) and
therefore nearshore waters would have benefited from
the reduced volume stranding on the shoreline.
ESI3: Reduced oiling of amenity beaches
ESI 2: Reduced oi ling of exposed wavecut platforms
Reduced oiling of exposed headlands and the offshore
sea surface
Detrimental effects observed by increasing the
volume of oil in the water column by 2-8 fold.
Nearshore
biota
in
the
sediment
(esp.
Amphipods) was affected by dispersed oil (SEEEC,
1998).
ESis relatively unaffected by the response operation.
Saltmarshes inside Milford Haven affected by the HFO
released inside the mouth of the Haven when the Sea
Empress was brought into port.
Commercial fisheries were not thOUght to be affected by
the increased volume of oil dispersing into the water
column (SEEEC 1998, Law et al 1998)
Sheltered rocky shores inside Milford Haven -as for
saltmarshes.
Potential
increase
in
exposure
offshore
sediments was not observed by the sediment sampling
operation
The physical removal of oil from the water surface

decreases overall damage, by reducing the threat to ES] 9
birds, mammals and shorelines. Dispersants may break
up a slick and so reduce the threat to birds, mammals
and shorelines; but the dispersed oil enters the water ESJ 8
column. In deep open waters it is rapidly diluted, but
there is often concern about the potential effects in ESI 2
shallow waters where it may increase the threat to
organisms such as fish larvae. Unless the shoreline
Tactical net environmental benefit analysis
consists of easily accessible firm sand, strategic Net
Environmental Benefit Analysis is likely to point
The aim of a tactical net environmental benefit
towards response operations which minimise the impact
analysis at the contingency planning stage or an actual
to nearshore and shoreline components.
response, in for example an enclosed bay, is to
An informative case history is the offShore dispersantdetermine which nearshore! shoreline resources should
be protected and which can be used as sacrificial areas.
spraying response to the Sea Empress spill off
Examples of the decisions to be made are nearshore use
southwest Wales, which led to a particularly large
,change in oil partitioning. As discussed in the section on
of dispersants and deflection booming. These response
options can be difficult to execute and we have not been
calculating a net oil budget, it is calculated that the
able to identify in the literature documented cases where
volume impacting the nearshore and shoreline resources
tactical response options have resulted in a clear
was reduced by 5-11 fold, while the volume partitioned
quantified net enviromnental benefit, though the
into the water colmnn was increased by 2-8 fold. The
advantages in terms of reduced oiling, and possible
benefits of protective booming of harbours and estuaries
may be obvious qualitatively. With respect to the
disadvantages' are summarised below as tar as possible.
It is concluded that the advantages outweighed the
question of nearshore dispersant use versus allowing the
disadvantages (SEEEC, 1998).
oil to strand, controlled field trials illustrate the potential
trade-offs to be made.
Benefits of reducing the volume of oil impacting
Quantification of the net environmental benefit of a
nearshore and shoreline exposure by5-11 fold.
nearshore response will be based around a detailed
ESI 10: Seabird
populations,
Scoters
in
particular,
monitoring approach encompassing both oil and
were protected by reduction of the volume of oil on the
ecological assessments, and including nearshore
sea surface.
subtidal areas as well as the shoreline. The best
ESI 9: Sheltered tidal flats in the 3 rivers region of
quantified information to date for this level of NEBA
Carmarthen Bay which could have been impacted had
comes from the field experiments comparing effects of
an increased volume of oil stranded resulted in
untreated oil with effects of oil that had been completely
remobilisation of oil before clean up
dispersed (i.e. in the initial stages of the experiment the
ESI 9: The key tourist beaches of Tenby and Saundersfoot
treatment had altered the mass balance to the extent that
could be opened by Easter 1996. If the volume of oil
that had to be removed from these beaches had been 5all the oil was in the water colmnn).
The Searsport (Maine) experiment (Page et 01. 1983)
1I times greater, it is unlikely that the storage and
addressed the question of whether dispersant use in
transport capacity of the shoreline response would have
nearshore water could have a benefit in reducing oiling
been able to cope adequately.
of sedimentary shores and concomitant biological
ESI7: FolloWing from the' previous point on the speed of oil
effects. Experimental plots were analysed chemically
removal if the volume of stranded oil is increased by 5and biologically for one year before treatment and one
1,1 fold, where shoreline oil was nut removed rapidly
year after. Hydrocarbons were measured in water,
008351
intertidal sediments and infauna (bivalves), an infauna

community structure was assessed. Petroleum retention
by intertidal sediments and bivalves measured one week
postspill was less in areas exposed to dispersed oil than
in areas exposed to untreated oil. Subtidal sediments did
not show a significant increment in dispersant-treated
oil except for a short-term (I week) increase at the
station nearest the dispersed oil release. There was no
evidence that exposure to dispersed oil caused adverse
effects on infaunal community structure. There was
clear evidence that exposure to untreated oil did
adversely affect community structure - some species
were reduced or eliminated, and there were blooms of
opportunistic polychaetes.
The BIOS experiment (Sergy and Blackall 1987)
considered an Arctic nearshore and intertidal area on
Baffin Island. The untreated oil was released in a
boomed test area and allowed to beach. The dispersed
oil cloud was created by discharging an
oil/dispersant/seawater mixture through a subtidal
diffuser nearshore. 'Despite unusually severe conditions
of exposure to chemically dispersed oil, the impact on a
typical shallow-water benthic habitat was not of major
ecological
consequence' .
Sub-tidal
organisms
accumulated dispersed oil rapidly but most of this was
degraded or depurated within one year. Untreated oil
residues remained on the beach after two years, with
some transport to adjacent subtidal sediments.
The TROPICS experiment (Ballou e/ al. 1989)
considered shallow nearshore waters with mangroves,
corals and seagrasses. Experimental plots were analysed
chemically and biologically before, during and after
treatment. Sediment data 3 days to 20 months post-spill
showed more oil in the untreated oiled mangrove area
than the dispersant treated. Untreated oi I had severe
long-term effects on the intertidal component of the
study site (mangroves and associated fauna) and minor
effects on subtidal environments (limited to a slight
decline in coral abundance). Dispersant treatment
greatly reduced effects in the intertidal zone, but there
were relatively severe long-term effects on seagrass and
coral environments.
Two types of scenario in which significant long-term
damage to reef organisms has occurred as a result of
untreated oil (as evidenced mainly by the Panama
Refinery spill of 1986) are described by IPIECA (1992).
The first is when oil is stranded on reef flats during very
low tides, the potential response option is dispersant
treatment which could be used to limit the volume of oil
stranding. The second is when shore sediments absorb
oil and then slowly release it, constituting a chronic
source of pollution for reefs in the shallow nearshore
waters. In this instance, the response option is
dispersing oil into sensitive areas which results in an
increase in acute exposure but reduces the chronic
exposure, potentially allowing a faster overall
recolonisation and recovery time.
It is a recommendation of this paper that the SCATtype approach described in the previous section be
considered an integral part of tactical decision making.
Where time allows, this will involve pre-oiling surveys
of biota in the sensitive areas identified by the
sensitivity maps. This should be followed by a full
survey detailing the area of shoreline initially impacted
by surface oil and an on-site estimate of the degree to
which the response operation (deflection booming or
nearshore dispersant use) has changed the potential

stranding profile.
Operational net environmental benefit

Once oil is stranded, the natural cleaning timescale
may be prolonged. Selected case histories covering a
range of shore conditions are summarised by Baker
(1997). In summary, observed timescales range from a
few days (some case histories for very exposed rocky
shores) to more than 20 years (some case histories for
very sheltered marshes). Given that in extreme cases
thick deposits of oil may remain after abut 20 years, it is
reasonable to extrapolate that natural cleaning may take
several decades in some sheltered environments.
On the shoreline in the short term, the physical
removal of bulk oil, or 'free' oil (e.g. by washing) can
also decrease damage, by removing the threat to various
types of organism, by reducing the likelihood of oil
floating off and threatening other areas, and by averting
the formation of asphalt pavements. However, shore
clean-up can damage organisms such as mussels,
. winkles and barnacles. They may be trampled during
and type of clean-up activity, or 'cooked' during hot
water/steam treatment.
The NEBA approach to shoreline cleanup developed
following the Exxon Valdez spill with respect to the
problem of subsurface oil, involved a NEBA comparing
the benefits of excavation and rock washing with the
benefits of natural cleanup augmented by less
aggressive methods (e.g. NOAA 1990). This study drew
upon SCAT data which showed, for example, that there
was evidence of substantial reduction of oil (up to 90%)
in the top 20 cm of shoreline during the winter of
1989/90, resulting from rough winter weather.
There are many reports of good recovery within one
or two years for the more exposed (mainly rocky)
shores, regardless of whether there was cleanup
treatment (Baker, 1997). With sheltered shores within
one or two years of oiling, there are more reports of
'recovery started' than reports of 'recovered'. In
extreme cases, the recovery times may be much longer
for sheltered shores than for exposed shores. The
longest recovery times are not consistently related to
whether or not cleanup treatment was carried out.
Recovery times were long (eight or more years) for
three particularly aggressive cases of shore cleaning (the
Torrey Canyon, the Amoco Cadiz, and the Esso
Bernicia) and two extreme cases of oil retention (the
Florida and the Metula). Further information on long
term effects of aggressive clean up comes from studies
following the Exxon Valdez spill (Houghton et al. 1997).
Salt marshes oiled by the Metulo and the Amoco
Cadiz spills provide an interesting comparison of
extreme oiling of relevance to NEBA. In the former
case. a marsh with untreated thick oil deposits
(commonly S or more em) retained oil and showed little
recovery after 20+ years, in the latter case aggressive
cleanup of thickly oiled marsh resulted in a prolonged
recovery time of 20+ years. What would happen if it
were necessary to deal with a new case of very thick oil
deposits on a saltmarsh? Because neither natural
cleanup nor aggressive treatment provides the best
environmental benefit, it seems that the greatest benefit
would result from a moderate level of cleanup sufficient to remove most of the bulk oil, but gentle
enough to leave the surface of the shore intact and to
avoid churning oil into underlying sediments.
008352
An important point: most spills do not present

circumstances as extreme as these, and 'typical'
recovery times for lightly to moderately oiled rocky
shores and saltmarshes are 1-5 years, with or without
cleanup (Sell et al. 1995). It is concluded from these
studies that for most spills, those that do not reach the
extremes of either oiling intensity or aggressive cleanup,
shore cleaning has little effi:ct on longer-term recovery
rates of shore organisms. This is a very important
finding for shoreline NEBA, because it means that the
key questions about whether the shore should be
cleaned are:
Will it otherwise act as a reservoir of oil that will, at
some time or another, move elsewhere and damage
resources other than shore biota?
Should the shore be classified as an extreme case
which does justifY cleanup for ecological reasons? The
At the strategic level where mechanical recovery and
dispersant options allow a change in the partitioning of
oil between the sea surface, nearshore and shoreline, sea
bed and water column the possibility of collecting the
type of information required for quantitative NEBA has
been demonstrated at the Sea Empress incident. This
paper suggests the methods and the level of information
that should be collected for strategic NEBA at future
spills.
At a tactical level the main quantitative information
available from the literature is from experimental trials.
These trials demonstrate that there are difficult tradeoffs in the near shore use of dispersants and potentially
also deflection booming. However, some level of
enviromnental effects are unavoidable once oil enters
nearshore/sheltered bays. Therefore, it is essential that
in future oil spills the success or otherwise of the
response operation be documented with SCAT-type
surveys to document the profile of initial oiling and the
degree to which nearshore use of dispersants andlor
deflection booming have changed the extent and
distribution of shoreline oiling.
The NEBA approach has been applied to the largest
range of spills at the operational level, although in most
cases after the spill event. Outside those spills that reach
Metula spill is the best documented case extreme where

a moderate level of cleanup would have resulted in a net
enviromnental benefit.
Will socia-economic issues dictate cleanup, even
though it is not necessary from an ecological point of
view? If so, decision making will be driven by
sociological and political measures of net environmental
benefit such as economic value and measures of
perception rather than the time for ecological recovery.
Conclusions
The calculation of the potential net oil budget allows a
method of quantifYing the potential net environmental
impacts of different courses of action. Choosing an
appropriate response strategy on the basis of this
process is what is defined in this paper as quantified
NEBA.
the extremes of oiling intensity or aggressive cleanup

there appears to be little ecological benefit in shoreline
cleanup of the immediately affected shoreline.
Therefore, operational NEBA should be aimed at
answering 3 key questions: Firstly, is the oil likely to
remobilise and affect other resources. Secondly, is the
oiling intensity defined as extreme to justifY clean up on
ecological grounds. Thirdly, are there socio-economic
issues which over-ride ecological issues?
References
I.
2.
3.
4.
Baker, I.M., 1997. How clean is clean? Issue

paper presented at the 1997 International Oil Spill
Conference. American Petroleum Institute, Washington
D.C.52pp.
Baker, 1.M., D.I. Little, and E.H. Owens, 1993.
A review of experimental shoreline oil spills.
Proceedings, 1993 Oil Spill Conference. American
Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C. pp. 395-399.
Ballou, T.G., S.c. Hess, RE. Dodge, AH. Knap
and T.D. Sleeter, 1989. Effects of untreated and
chemically dispersed oil on tropical marine
II
long-term
field
experiment.
communities:
Proceedings, 1989 Oil Spill Conference.. American
Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C. pp. 447-454.
ESGOSS. Ecological Steering Group on the Oil
QUAUFIED NET WENVlRONMENTAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS
008353
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
II.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Spill in Shetland. The environmental impact of the wreck

of the BRAER The Scottish Office, Edinburgh 1994.
Galt J., Lehr W., Payton D. Fate and Transport of
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Science &
Technology. VoI2S, No.2, 202-209,1991.
Gundlach, E., T.W. Kana and P.D. Boehm, 1985.
Modelling spilled oil partitioning in nearshore and surf
zone areas. Proceedings, 1985 Oil Spill Conference.
American Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C. pp.
379-383.
Henry C.B. Dispersant application in support of
the High Island pipeline system spill. Report to USCG
Galveston, Texas, 29 January, 1998a.
Henry C.B. Dispersant application in support of
the MN Red Seagull spill. Report to USCG Galveston,
Texas, 30 January, 1998b.
Houghton J.P., Gilmore RH., Lees D.C.,
Driskell W.B., Lindstrom S.C., Mearns A. Prince
William Sound intertidal biota seven years later: Has it
recovered ? Proceedings, 1997 International Oil Spill
D.C. pp 679-686.
IMOIlPIECA, 1996. Sensitivity mapping for oil
spill response. International Petroleum Industry
Environmental Conservation Association, London. 24
pp.
lPIECA, 1991. A guide to contingency planning
for oil spills on water. International Petroleum Industry
Environmental Conservation Association, London. 19
pp.
IPIECA, 1992. Biological impacts of oil
pollution: coral reefs. IPIECA Report Series Volume 3.
International Petroleum Industry
Environmental Conservation Association, London. 16 pp.
ITOPF Containment and recovery of oil at sea.
The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation
Ltd. Contract No. 23/91, 1991.
Johansson, S., U. Larsson and P Boehm, 1980.
The Tsesis oil spill: impact on the pelagic ecosystem.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 11,284-293.
Lunel T., Swannell R., Rusin J., Bailey N.,
Halliwell C., Davies L., Sommerville M., Dobie A,
Mitchel D., McDonagh M., & Lee K. Monitoring of the
effectiveness of response options during the Sea
Empress incident: A key component of the successful
counter-pollution response. Spill Science & Technology
Bulletin., 99-112, Vol. 2, (published in 1996) 1995.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Lunel T., Rusin 1., Bailey N., Halliwell C., &

Davies L. The Net Environmental Benefit of a
Successful Dispersant Operation at the Sea Empress
Incident. Pmc. 1997 International Oil Spill Conference,
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 185-194,1997.
Michel, J. and J. Dahlin, 1993. Guidelines for
developing digital enviroumental sensitivity index
atlases and databases. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA
NOAA, 1990. Excavation and rock washing
treatment technology: net environmental benefit
analysis.
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration, Seattle. 199 pp.
Owens, E.H., 1991. Changes in shoreline oiling
conditions I 1/2 years after the 1989 Prince William
Sound Spill.
Owens, E.H. and G.A Sergy, 1994. Field guide
to the documentation and description of oiled
shorelines. Environment Canada. 66 pp.
Page, D.S., J.C. Foster, J.R. Hotham, E.
Pendergast, S. Hebert, L. Gonzalez, E.S. Gilfillan, SA
Hanson, RP. Gerber and D. Vallas, 1983. Long-tenn
fate of dispersed and undispersed crude oil in two
nearshore test spills. Proceedings, 1983 Oil Spill
D.C. pp 465-471.
Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hampson, L.S.
Morse, S. Price-Garner and C.C. Jones, 1980. Anatomy
of an oil spill: long-term effects from the grounding of
the barge Florida off West Falmouth, Massachusetts.
Journal of Marine Research 38, 265-380.
Sell, D., L. Conway, T. Clark, G.B. Picken, J.M.
Baker, G.M. Dunnet, AD. Mcintyre and R.B. Clark,
1995. Scientific criteria to optimise oil spill cleanup.
Proceedings, 1995 International Oil Spill Conference.
American Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C. pp.
595-610.
Sergy, G.A. and P.I. Blackall, 1987. Design and
conclusions of t\!.e Baffin Island oil spill project. Arctic
Vol. 40, Supplement 1, 1-9.
SEEEC. 1998 The Environmental Impact of the
Sea Empress Oil Spill. The Stationery Office, London,
pp135.
Wolfe D., Harneedi M., Galt J., Watabayashi G.,
Short J., Clair C., Rice S., Michel J., Payne J., Braddock
J., Hanna S., & Dale D. Fate of the oil spilled from the
TN Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium Abstracts. 1993.
008354
1. How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate
length of time or a range?
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf. Biodegradation speed varies
greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. Dispersed and residual oil will biodegrade, and that
NOM NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying, may have results soon.
2. Has the data already been peer-reviewed, or is it going to be peer-reviewed?
Also,
did outside scientists help with the calculations?

The Oil Budget Calculator was developed by a team at the Department of the Interior (001) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The tool was created by the US
Geological Survey in collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA and NIST.
A number of outside scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculation methodologies.
3. With all the ships and dispersants and the skimming and the burning, why did 67
percent of the oil in this incident elude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
There are a number factors, one thing to keep in mind, is that oil that was naturally
dispersed or dissolved was naturally mitigated almost immediately and was therefore not
available to respond to.
Oil that evaporated was not there to be responded to.
Residual oil
26% is what we arguably could have dealt with.
4. You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent?
How can you say that if there's nothing to compare it to? Why is 33 percent a
positive number? Why uot 50 percent?
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique, however, given that this
happened so far out in the water,
Valdez - (with current flow rate Valdez approx every 4 days)
5. Chemical dispersants were only responsible for eliminating 8 percent of the oil,
according to the oil budget report. If that's so, why did the federal government
allow BP to use such unprecedented amounts of an ineffective toxic chemical, the
effects of which have hardly been tested on the natural environment and certainly
not in these amounts?
It is important to note that 8% of the spilled oil represents approximately 16 million
gallons oil that might otherwise have washed up on beaches and marshes.
Chemical dispersion breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from coming ashore in large
surface slicks and makes it more readily available for biodegradation.
008355
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life,
and has recently released it second report about that subject.
These results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf, Corexit
9S00A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other
available alternatives. The results also indicate that dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no
more toxic to the aquatic test species than oil alone.
Dispersant was one of many response techniques employed to combat this environmental
disaster, and as we have said all along, was a question of environmental trade-offs.
6. Using the oil budget report as a guide, given the effectiveness of the various
mitigation efforts, how should the federal government have changed its response
efforts?
What this report shows is where the oil ended up. We can see that the very aggressive
and coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Command were
successful in dealing with nearly one third of the oiL We have also been fortunate that
mother nature has helped as well, with natural dispersion, evaporation and dissolution
accounting for a significant portion of the oil.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline
areas where tar balls may still come ashore, and we continue to collect data and do
research to quantify the concentrations and location of subsurface oil, and better
understand the long term impacts of this spill.
7. How long will the oil be present and visible in the Gulf?
8. What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for
this spill?
008356
1. How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate
length of time or a range?
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf. Biodegradation speed varies
greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. Dispersed and residual 011 will biodegrade. and that
NOAA NSF and DOE are actively studying this Important question to studying. may have results soon.
2. Has the data already been peer-reviewed, or is it going to be peer-reviewed? Also,

did outside scientists help with the calculations?
3. With all the ships and dispersants and tbe skimming and tbe burning, why did 67
percent of the oil in this incident elude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
There are a number factors, one thing to keep in mind, is that oil that was naturally
dispersed or dissolved was naturally mitigated almost immediately and was therefore not
available to respond to.
Oil that evaporated was not there to be responded to .
Wh~!! .Y.~!l. .1~~~.~U~<;. 9.i.l. !~.~! .~!S..~!!~.~~J.~~~p.~r~~l. c.o!I~.<:~ .lI:t .~~).lh~~~I. ~~. .s.~!!!1.~~.~........ f Fonnatted: Font: Not Bold
as well as Residual oil - the unified response addressed approximately 50%. 26% is what
we arguably could have dealt with.
4.You say tbe federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's tbe precedent?
How can you say tbat If there's notbing to compare it to? Why is 33 percent a
positive number? Why not 50 percent? See answer above~ ...........
uu .... u
................ _
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique, however, given that this
happened so far out in the water,
Valdez- (with current flow rate Valdez approx every 4 days)
5. Chemical dispersants were only responsible for eliminating 8 percent of the oil,
according to tbe oil budget report. If tbat's so, why did the federal government
allow BP to use such unprecedented amounts of an ineffective toxic chemical, the
effects of wbicb have hardly been tested on the natural environment and certainly
not in these amounts?
It is important to note that 8% of the spilled oil represents approximately 16 million
gallons oil that might otherwise have washed up on beaches and marshes.
.........
f Fonnatted: Bullets and Numbering
Fonnatted: Font: Not Bold
008357
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life,
and has recently released it second report about that subject.
9S00A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other
6. Using the oil budget report as a guide, given the effediveness of the various
mitigation efforts, how should the federal government have changed its response
efforts?
What this report shows is where the oil ended up. We can see that the very aggressive
and coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Command were
successful in dealing with nearly one third ofthe oil. We have also been fortunate that
mother nature has helped as well, with natural dispersion, evaporation and dissolution
accounting for a significant portion of the oil.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline
areas where tar balls may still come ashore, and we continue to collect data and do
research to quantify the concentrations and location of subsurface oil, and better
understand the long term impacts of this spill.
+.How long will the oil be present and visible in the Gulf - The surface expression is
almost all gone. Tarballs will continue to impacts for a while (~" ................... _..
L
8. What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for
this spill?
,.. ...... Fonnatted: Bullets and Numbering
___ ,',' 1 Fonnatted: Font Not Bold
008358
EUSGS
science for B changing world
Thanks for that.
August 24, 2010
The Oil Budget Calculator is a web-based technological tool used to provide the National
Incident Command with situational awareness based on information received about the oil spill
incident. Prior to mid-June, NIC staff entered data into a spreadsheet. There was a limited
ability to visually display assess day-to-day status. On June 11, 2010, the NIC which had
established an Interagency Solutions Group (1ASG) requested that the USGS construct a tool
that met the following original requirements: gets away from the managing a spreadsheet;
allows easy daily entry of variables; and has built-in security so that errors could not be easily
introduced.
Data entry and Security

The tool has a simple data-entry interface allows entry of daily data variables (oil burned, oily
water skimmed, dispersants used, etc.) by USCG staff.' An execution log tracks who made the
entry and when. USGS manages who has access t~ the data entry interface. Presently, the tool
physically resides on a USGS server and is managed and accessed through a password protected
portal. Access to the application is limited and is managed by the NIC.
Calculations
The tool runs a statistical model developed by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Statistical and Engineering Division. The statistical model is built using
calculations and assumptions provided by the Flow Rate Technical Group and the science team
led by NOAA and consisting of oil fate and behavior scientists from government, academia, and
industry. The model reviewed prior to the USGS application development team incorporating it
in to the tool. USGS did have a role working back and forth with the science and statistical
teams to refine the scientific program (the model) and the way the figures are output in the
reports. However, there has been a clear distinction between the computer science (USGS) and
the oil behavior science (NOAA/NIST).
Output
The Oil Budget Calculator aggregates the data entry and the statistical model output together
for improved NIC situational awareness in response to the oil spill incident. The tool produces
an executive summary table (showing daily and cumulative totals) and fairly simple charts
based on those numbers. A spreadsheet of values can also be viewed and exported. The user
has the abilityto look at summary information for any date during the response.
In summary, the oil budget calculator tool was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
at the request of the U.S. Coast Guard (NIC). The tool went in to production on June 22, 2010.
,:,The application has been refactored several times since then leading to the overall current
:version 1.3.1. USGS developers have deployed 124 "builds" of the Web application codebase.
It presently resides on a USGS server and is managed and accessed through a password
protected portal. Access to the application is managed by the U.S. Coast Guard (NIC). The
calculator is owned by the U.S. Coast Guard (NIC) as an operational tool. Algorithms used in the
tool were developed in cooperation with oil behavior scientists from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and statisticians from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
008359
A formal peer-reviewed product documenting the tool, its development, the data and
algorithms used, along with the underlying is currently being written BY NOAA with coauthorship by NIST and USGS. Discussions have been initiated between USGS and the U.S.
Coast Guard about both transferring the technology and arranging for long-term USGS hosting
of the application for future incidents.
As of this date plans are to deploy one more version with the new R model from NIST that
calculates and displays uncertainty in more concrete terms and then see where the USCG wants
to take the application from that point. We've discussed
Deepwater Horizon MC252 GlJlf Incident on BUdget
Update Dally Variables for 2010-08-19 (Day 122)

Vanable
Value
Screen shot of the Oil Budget Calculator tool input screen.

Prepared August 18, 2010 by:
Stephen Hammond
U.S. Geological Survey
NIC Science Support Liaison
Reston, VA
Sky Bristol
Application Development Project leader
Denver, CO
008360
EUSGS
science loT lIchanging world
iAugust24
..lIsbjftingthi.to
,
'. , '201""
.- "1 ______________ --- --- ---- -.- ---- -- -- ---- _. --- ---- ----. --. -- -- -- --. --. -- ---- --. ----- -- --. --_... -- _...... _.. _. -..- -. :~[MKS1J:I....;,."".
the end;imlessliaving th~d!it. hei. i. a SIl!ndard
@~U~!L!!~~_~~~j~~I~~~~~~_d? __'!. X"~.~~~~_~Il!_~. !1l!~~~().I~~iE'!! _t.<?~I. !J?~d_ .t~. P.~~~id.e _.t~_~ _.N~t!().n~l. _
Incident Command with situational awareness eased OR iAfarmation reeeied alaout the oil 5t3i11
incidentabout how much oil had been released from the Macondo Well, and the fate of that oil.
The data were gathered and reported daily to the NIC, which generated the oil budget figures.
Prior to mid-June, NIC staff entered data into a stand-alone spreadsheet file that had limited
Version control, security, or graphing capabilities. Ti:lere was a limited aeility to \'isl:l<llly elisF\lay
assess da'{ to da'i statl:lS, On June 11, 2010, the NIC which had ostaelisi:led an Interagency
Solutions Group (IASG) requested that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS1 construct a tool that
met ti:le following original reql:liromontswould: gets away from eliminate the need to tRe
manag~ifIg a spreadsheet~ allows easy daily entry of variables; and have J:!as.built-in security
so that errors could not be easily introduced.

The tool has a simple data-entry interface that allows entry of daily data variables (oil burned,
oily water skimmed, dispersants used, etc.) by U.S. Coast Guard (USCGl staff. An elEecution log
tracl~s wi:lo mase ti:le entry aRs wheR. UIdS maRages who has access to the eata entp;
interface. Presently, the tool physically resides on a USGS server and is managed and accessed
through a password protected portal. Access to the application is limited and.is m<lAageeiaccess
levels are determined by the N1Cj log-in permissions are implemented by the USGS technical
team. An execution log tracks who made the entry and when.
Calculations
calculations and assumptions provided by the. Flow Rate Technical Group and the science team
industry. The model It!@Lreviewed prior to the USGS application development team
incorporating it in to the tool. USGS aia l'Ia',<e a role workiRg l3aek ana forth worked with the
science and statistical teams to refine the scientific program (the model) and the way the
figures are output in the reports. However, there has been a clear distinction in roles between
the computer science (USGS) and the oil behavior science (NOAA/NISn.
Output
an executive summary table (showing dally and cumulative totals) and fairly simple charts
has the ability to look at summary information for any date during the response.
-:::.-
folma!.
.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Comment [MKS2.]: Sin.. the other seotions start
off with bold font, eonsidor bolding the firat part of
"this-sentence ~ well.
008361
calli.lilatorisowned bythe U.s. CoastGuarQ'(f'J'icr ~san operation~ltool.Algorit:hms. ~sei:lin.the

tool Were t1eVelop~d In(;OOp~ration'witb OU' behavior. scientists fiomtheNa'tional Oceanic am:!
AtrrrQsph'eticAdminiStratiohi3n:dst~tisticiahs'froin theNationallristitute' of. Standards alid
1echnolo!W{ '"'""""'''-'"''''''"''''''''''""'''''''''' __ """.""""",,,, __ "__ .,,, ____ """" ", __ ","""."".""",,
algorithms used, along with the underlying is currently being written Qyi NOAA with coauthorship by NIST and USGS. Discussions have been initiated between USGS and the IJ.:.i.
Coast GuardUSCG about both transferring the technology and arranging for long-term USGS
hosting of the application for future incidents.
calculates and displays uncertainty in more concrete terms, after which we will evaluate af\tI
tRElA see where the USCG wants to take the application frsA'! tRat ~eiAt. 'NEl'vEl r:lissUSSElEi
D.epwater Itortzon MC:292 Gulf Incident 011 Eludge.
Update DallyVariable& for 201008-19 (Day 122)

Variable
Value

' 'Comment [MW]: Oi";""that this i.allcovored

above. pretty sUccihctly, I am riOl'...... you nee<! this
pai'a,graph.
008362
Stephen Hammond
NIC Science Support Liaison
Reston, VA
Sky Bristol
Denver, CO
008363
.USGS
~uglist24,201q ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ------ COnlment[MKS1]: J rec9mmend shifting this to

-the end. lDIlesS haVing the date here is. standard
kh~_g!U~~~_g~~_91_I~':I~~~~d~ __~ __~~_~~~~_~~_~_~~~_~~~I_<?~i~~! __~C?~!_~S~~__~9__ l:>r~~i~_~ __t~_e_.N~t!9_n~I__ ._____ : .;~;.;.orm;';'n a.; ;at~t " ed'-'-:F-o-nt-:Bo...:...ld---------~
Incident Command with situational awareness saseel OR iRfeFmatieR reeei\'eel asol:lt ti:le ail sl3ill " "'~""";";"''';'''''';''-;'';'''''''''''''''_ _ _ _-<
ffiitIefItabout how much oil had been released from the Macondo Well, and the fate of that oil._Comnient [MKS2]:'Sincetheoth<irseclion.start,offWith bold fon~,ConSider-bolding the-firSt part-of
The data were gathered and reported daily to the NIC, which generated the oil budget figures.
thissenti:ncellllwell.
Prior to mid-June, NIC staff entered data into a stand-alone spreadsheet file that had limited
version control, security, or graphing capabilities, Ti:lere was a limiteel asility to 'Jisl:lally elisl3lay
assess elay to elay statl:ls. On June 11, 2010, the NIC wi:liei:l i:lael estaslisi:leel aR Interagency
Solutions Group (IASG) requested that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS} construct a tool that
met ti:le foliewiRg origiRal reql:liremeRtswould: gets away fram eliminate the need to tl:l-e
manag~iflg a spreadsheet~ allows easy daily entry of variables; and have J:!as.-built-in security
oily water skimmed, dispersants used, etc.) by U.S. Coast Guard (USCG} staff. ,o.R elleel:ltioR lag
trael<s wi:lo maele ti:le eRtry aREI wi:leR. UfiiGfii maRages wi:lo i:las aeeess to tAe lata eRt!)'
iRterfaee. Presently, the tool physically resides on a USGS server and is managed and accessed
through a password protected portal. Access to the application is limited and is ffiaRageeiaccess
levels are determined by the NIC; log-in permissions are implemented by the USGS technical
Calculations
industry. The model was reviewed prior to the USGS application development team
incorporating it in to the tool. USGS aiel i:lave a role worl<iRg Baek aRe:! forti:l worked with the
the computer science (USGS) and the oil behavior science (NOAA/NIST).
Output
~illli!g~f~ig~~~I~'~~~~~~
prbtectErl(porftlli:,A-ccess\tq;theapplicatioijls inanag~d .bytheU;S.' Coast Guard (NIC). The
008364
u.s.
calfl.llator!sOwned.by:the
CqclstGuard(Nlqas!ari 6pera,tionaltool; Algonthins used In the
tqol.were develbpediric00T>eration withollbehailior-sCiEm!istsfrom the NatibnalOceanip and
.
. :Administration and statisticians fromfhe National Institute of Standards and
algorithms used, along with the underlying is currently being written ~S NOAA with coauthorship by NIST and USGS. Discussions have been initiated between USGS and the y..,s.,
Coast G~araUSCG about both transferring the technology and arranging for long-term USGS
hosting of the application for future incidents.
calculates and displays uncertainty in more concrete terms, after which we will evaluate aRE!
tl1en see where the USCG wants to take the application froFR tRat J3O'iAt. 'Alo'yO eliSSI:l5S0a
De.pwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident 011 Budl/et
-Update Dally Variables for 2011).08-19 (Day 122)

Varlabte
Value

008365
Stephen Hammond
NIC Science Support liaison
Reston, VA
Sky Bristol
Denver, CO
008366
USGS
science for II dlanglng world
f.\ug\;lsti4,201~
-*-- . ____ cO!IimentfMKS1J:lreeoinni",d..pifti.,g.t!\iSfn

date herels a_dard
k~~.~9!L!~~J~~~,~~.I~J~~~d~..~..~!!.b~_b~_~~.~ ..~E?!=.~.'"!~1.<?~i.c:~! __~9~!.~~~~..!CI..R~CI.~!~_~ __~~_~ __I;J_~!)~-')~1.1;'"fonnilt,
,. -. - .." '
~--.
_M _ _ _
~_~~
--
~-~ ~
~ ~.
--
-~-- ~. ~-~~.---------~
---
--~ ~
-- --
~-~~ ~~-- -~--
---- -
-~-
---~--~-~-~--
-~-"
~:end. ~1.essila:v1ng~e
Incident Command with situational awareness l3aseel ElR iRrorR'l9tieR reeeivea asaOlt tl1e ail 513i11 "::":-l-Fo~nna;;;.;;..tted=,;..:Fon..,;,;..t,;,,:Bo~ld.,.-........,..,.-...,...,.._-<
iRciaeRtabout how much oil had been released from the Macondo Well. and the fate of that oil. \\" ,~nl~[MKs21:)iinl'il.1h~~rseorio~.;Siart
.. -;
,ilffWitlrbqld;forit;i!onslder,lxll<lirigtlio.m.tplll1 of '
The data were gathered and reported daily to the NIC, which generated the oil budget figures. .. \,ihi~.enieilce"WeIL ...',.
. '
'.
Prior to mid-June, NIC staff entered data into a ~ta:rid~i:ilbl1~,ip;:~~ashe~ttti!~_~~.~!u~~.9.!!':1:'J~~~_. \, "Comment[SB31:somewherealongthoway,
version control. security, or graphing capabilities. Tl1ere was a liR'litea allilit" ta ..1501all" elisnla" \. ... someonedeci~edlo5tartcallingittheCaiculator,so
f
t
..... f .
\ wel~'3tukwiththatname.
assess aay tEl aay status. On June 11, 2010, the NIC ",,111eA Ras establisAea aA Interagency \, 'n...
.[-M"NG4']"
,
',,,.,.mment
: 'Is rt no longer th.'OIi
Solutions Group (IASG) requested that the u.s. Geological Survey (USGSl construct a tool that
\. ~aUlisetTool7' , ..
,," ,
met tl1e roll,,.... iRg "rig/Ral reElt!ireR'lORtswould: gets awa" freR'l eliminate the need to w
"eom [f,iNG5]:eantwojustoallil!lO Excel
manag~ffig a spreadsheet~ allows easy daily entry of variables; and have IffIs-built-in security
,spreadillieel,"
.
.
ment

oily water skimmed, dispersants used, etc.) by U.S. Coast Guard (USCGl staff. PtR elEeCtitiaR log
tracks '.'1110 R'laele tAe eRtF't' aAa ..... l1eR. blSGS R'laRages wl10 Ras access ta tAe aata eRtF)'
iAterface. Presently, the tool j911'1'sieall.,. resides on a USGS server and is managed and accessed
through a password protected portal. Access to the application is limited and is R'laRagedaccess
levels are determined by the NIC; log-in permissions are implemented by the USGS technical
Calculations
Technology (NIST) Statistical and Engineering Division. The statistical model ~~_lJ!!~I~?.i.'"!(L .. +~~~NG6J:If::e""'~iogPastlell'.
~a , ~ " con nue '.
.'
industry. The model was reviewed prior to the USGS application development team
incorporating it in to the tool. USGS did l1a'/e a rsle wsrkiRg saek aAd ferti=l worked with the
the computer science (USGS) and the oil behavior science (NOAA/NIST).
Output
I II il:~o"'~tV~.tH~:(jil,buag~(tal:clll,l~teft90iW~s;d~yeIQpiedYiWEi; ~,i_i '~~ei~gre'Sj~~~;e;t'(~.~~?1

af~h~requ~!;tof.tn,eU,~,.~oaS~i(.1Qal'd (N,IC),' .Tbe,t8t)twentirrtqprdQ,~ctiQIl'or)lurie22;tQlP,
fhe.
app!itatiRri<'hasbe~ri}'r~fiiCtred . ~eyeral;time:s since'\h\;r1. ieadlhif,i~the" overallcurrel'!t
vers.jorYl.3~1;~,U$(3S,develop,ef-srhaYf!d~PIClyed li4."QPild~,lfbfth(Web. ~pPlitatiOri.,coqebase:

Itl>r,e~eritrV'Jf!iiaes{)n,:;a;JjSGs.se.ryer~irid'iS '. rilariage~ .andacCe~sedthroughapassword
prbtectei:l.portaJ.A~c~ss:tothEl~pplicatldni.sma:naged:b.vtlil!!l:J;S; Caast,Guard(NICf. 'The
008367
ca,lflJjatOriSo~ri~db:Yfileu,s:.c~astGl.Iard'(N)(;)asan~~per~tibi1al~6ol.: Aigbrithmsusdin th'e

toQ(WetedevefdpeClintooper.atkIl1withoil b'ehavior.sclentistsfrom the'NatiOnaVOceanicand
Atm~spherii:<Ad~h~is~ration andstatistlCiaris :fromtheNatlonal h"stituteof Standards and
_ _
_.
:e:::::~;~~~~~~~;~~~~ ~~~~_~~ ~~~~~_~~~;~~ ~~~ ~~~I_:_;;~__ ~~~~I~~~~~;:_~~~_'~~~~ _ ~~~_ ;:<:: ~1II?}:~~~,=::!:;~:~wth7.

algorithms used, along with the underlying is currently being written ~8 NOAA with co.
ComrrIent,[MNG8]I.Agreed
authorship by NIST and USGS. Discussions have been initiated between USGS and the y.,s.,
Coast GllardUSCG about both transferring the technology and arranging for longterm USGS
hosting of the application with modifications fbr~uture~i;:i!=iaen~~ .......... ," ________ ""_",~""",~,, .. _..... .
calculates and displays uncertainty in more concrete terms, after which we will evaluate ootI
tl=t9A see where the USCG wants to take the application WOR'! tHat 130iAt. 'Ne\'e aiss!:Isses
Deepwater HOllZOn MCZ52 Gulf IncIdent 011 Budgel
Update Dally Variables for 2010.08-19 (Day 122)

Value
Variable
bIi;C~VIa;JmTir~l~l'
!:'t;:t~~)~,.~\~,
. ..
~.~~'jIlO~~~t:./ ,-----lr~~jgai.lijif;.c;;:",
,...- - - - - ,
~::::,:;'":'~j~,:~.~:,'4~-.;./~~~,.:.~~.;.;~"'~ '(;~:;~ .;..~:-:~.~ ~-,,~;- - r , . :. .:;' ~~~::.: .':;'.-:;:C;:. ~-:-, ;:..;;;";~~;::: ,; ~:;;:;,;~.}..~,'j7~~ ~.'!'~~;~>-";~~;';-;~::':;':'::1;~-;':;'";~:~' ,~;,. _T,\~;::F:~ ":
";;A~~-,~':"-'~:''-:';~~-?''-:~'--~''':''''''~:':'''''''- .",_ ....
@Sour"'~",~4'~
<
""
Cl!l3,aa,,~
:. ,-

'-ention': _
IhlStiiGi:are<
liilimvHoondiilonsioind1liai Ili.too!
CIiMotJ..Itbtin\i8iatidl\iiIfuttl11i!"ll spill!
' c ' '.,
.'
008372
Now that the gusher that spewed oil for

85 days into the Gulf of Mexico has stopped,
scientists are wondering where it all went. A
federal report released last week should have
begun to answer that question. Instead, political spin and media hype transformed the scientists' message even before it was released.
According to one CNN reporter, the interagency report led by the Department of the
Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that of
the 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled, "75% has
been cleaned up by Man or Mother Nature."
Nothing in the report supports that interpretation. But there are multiple ways to read
the report's iconic pie chart while remaining grounded in fact. One is that responders have-with herculean effortintercepted 25% of the oil, leaving 75%
to have its way with the environment.
Under this interpretation, "raising the
flag and declaring victory is premature:'
says biogeochemist Samantha Joye of
the University of Georgia, Athens.
Another take on the report finds that
three-quarters of the oil is gone from the
gulf or is dispersed in the water in its most
easily degraded form. This remaining oil "is
degrading quickly right now," says marine
geochemist Edward Overton of Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge.
Fuzzy budget. Afederal report divvies up the oil

(top) but allows for uncertainties (bottom).
734
Overton and other optimists note that

today official maps from NOAA no longer
show any surface oil in the gulf. And the
"massive" deep oil plumes of media fame
now appear to have been faint shadows of
their public images. Resolving the inevitable
uncertainties and filling in the gaps ofsuch an
early report will no doubt take many months.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget
Baseo
Oll1!5tlll'ated f~[edse
Unified command
response operations
of 4.9 Hl\lhol1 bane!:; of {pi
'Oil in these three

categories is currently
being degraded naturally
The report's most certain conclusion was

that responders managed to collect or remove
about 25% of the oil released from the damaged well. Seventeen percent was collected
at the wellhead in an unprecedented technological feat. About 5% was burned at the surface, an exceptionally large proportion for
a U.S. spill, experts say. But skimmers captured only 3% of the total, despite the highprofile effort. Such meager results are to be
expected in the open ocean, says William
Lenr of NOAA's emergency response division in Seattle, Washington, who worked on
the report. Less than 0.1 % had been recovered from beaches and marshes.
That leaves 75% of the spill that remained
in the environment, but just how it entered
it--as oily scum on the surface, as more readily degraded microscopic droplets at depth,
or as vapors into the atmosphere-is far less
certain. That's because these flows were calculated, not measured. Despite the seeming precision of the pie chart, "there's a large degree
of uncertainty," says Lehr. Uncertainties crop
up, for example, in calculations of" natural dispersion" involving the physics of oil and gas
jetting into seawater from the wellhead. These
calculations yield an estimate of how much
oil ends up dispersing as droplets smaller than
100 micrometers in diameter. That's the size
range that can drift away in a horizontal plume
the way dust can float in the air.
Add up all the uncertainties and they can
be considerable. There are uncertainties in
calculating the natural and chemical dispersion that produces deep plumes as well as dissolution in seawater or evaporation from the
surface. Then there is the I 0% uncertainty
in the total volume of the spill. All told, the 8
"residual oil"-what could not be measured ~
or estimated but is left to float as tarballs or be ~
washed ashore-could be as high as 39"10 of ~
the total or as low as 13%, b)l a simple account- ~
ing from charts in the report's supplement.
!;l
Perhaps the most muddled calculation :li
involves the fraction of oil that went into the ~
dreaded subsurface plumes. The media "created an image of an underwater river of oil," ~
says Steven Murawski, NOAA's chief scientist for fisheries in Silver Spring, Maryland, ~
who is overseeing spill science for NOAA. ~
"In a glass, [plume water) looks like clear ~
seawater." He says that measurements of oil g
reveal a principal plume confined to depths ~
of 1000 meters to 1300 meters that in spots :5
5%
3/.
6%
Possible alternative estimates
13 AUGUST 201 0
VOL 329
SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
Published byAAAS
o.o
C\J
cr)
....
'lii
:l
Cl
:::I
c:
g
E
c
Q)
'0
en
I
E
.g
-c
Q)
-c
~c:
~
008373
contained 1 to 2 parts per million of oil

(1 or 2 milliliters in a cubic meter of sea-
water). Most parts ofthe plume, however, had

lower concentrations; farther than 10 kilometers from the wellhead, concentrations
were in the parts-per-billion range.
If something like 20% of the oil-I 5,000
barrels a day--dispersed into the deep sea, as
the report has it, precious little of it has been
showing up in plume observations. That raises
the issue of biodegradation and how quickly

microbes might be consuming the oil. The
report states that according to early signs, the
oil "is biodegrading quickly." It provides no
documentation for that claim, while hearsay
about observations awaiting publication and
public release is mixed. "The message I've
heard is that everywhere we look, oil is degrading extremely rapidly," says Overton. Joye,
who has generated some of the relevant data,
is more cautious. "Sure it's getting degraded,

but we don't know how fast," she says.
Ultimately, determining the rates of oil
degradation, evaporation, and dilution in the
gulfrather than this report's parsing ofthe oil'g
immediate fate will show where the oil went.
Such analysis should determine whether, as
Lehr puts it, "Mother Nature is almost always
the best removal mechanism."
-~ICHARD
A. KERR
o
......
o
GULF OIL SPILL
C\I
M
.,..
An Audacious Decision in Crisis Gets Cautious Praise

How BP came to spray 1.1 million gallons
of chemical dispersants a mile beneath the
ocean surface is a story of scientists turning to desperate measures during desperate
times. And the government's decision to let
BP do so, among the most gutsy calls of the
entire Deepwater Horizon saga, was a classic
case of pitting the devil you know against the
devil you don't.
Roughly a week after the magnitude of
the gusher became clear in late April, former
Exxon-Mobil scientist Gerard Canevari
suggested that BP might try spraying chemicals called dispersants right at the billowing wellhead. Dispersants are usually used
in small quantities on the surface of the
ocean to break up slicks. Canevari's idea
would mean releasing giant amounts of the
fairly nasty chemicals in the cold and highpressure world of the ocean floor, something
that had never been tried. "At first we were
going, 'Yeah, right:" recalls Charlie Henry, a
top scientist on Gulf of Mexico issues for the
National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA). "It was out of the norm"-a
massive proposed undersea experiment.
But, he says, the unprecedented nature of
the problem meant nothing was off the table.
While outlining the pros and cons on white
boards in NOAA's New Orleans office, says
Henry, the basic tradeoff seemed clear. Every
drop of oil that made it to the surface was a
potential threat to coastal ecosystems, fish,
and marine mammals. Dispersants, which are
mostly detergents, break up globs of crude
into microscopic droplets that are more readily devoured by microbes. So keeping as
much oil as possible below the surface would
give microbes a leg up in eating the oil. And
injecting dispersants into the hot, vigorously

mixing oil afthe busted riser would presumably mean they would work especially effectively. Smaller quantities would then presumably be needed at the ocean surface.
Some drawbacks emerged during a conference call with 25 industry and academic scientists arranged by NOAA in early May: The
risks to undersea marine life--eggs, larvae,
fish, coral, and other bottom dwellers-were
largely unknown. One possibility was particularly frightening: Giving microbes a feast of
hydrocarbons might massively increase their
numbers, starving the water column of oxygen and creating dead zones.
www.sciencemag.org
SCIENCE VOL 329

Published byAMS
~01
~
c:
o
So government scientists proposed a

three-tiered plan to try the undersea injection as safely as possible. First, teams across
the country began adapting existing undersea models of oil plumes to predict how they
might move, referencing data on nearby sea
life from the Department of the Interior. Second, they required that BP conduct aggressive monitoring, including ocean surfaceto-floor water sampling, toxicity tests using
zooplankton, and tests with f1uorometers,
which would continuously track the oil droplets. And if the dispersant injection created
unexpected effects during tests, an "adaptive
management" plan would enable the feds to
halt the procedure immediately.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Coast Guard agreed to the procedure on 15 May. "I don't think I've had to
make a harder decision," "EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson told reporters at the time. BP
deployed a specially built tube with tiny ....
13 AUGUST 2010
Bl
o
g>
g
(i)
.~
I
-e
E
'C
(i)
C\
735
008374
NEWSOFTHEWEEK
holes that was clamped in place to release the
chemical right at the spurting pipe.
On 27 May, the first real vetting of the
new approach came at a meeting of scientists
culled largely from academia and the nonprofit sector, hastily organized by NOAA.
The outsiders were asked "to second-guess
us," says Henry. Chemist Jeffrey Short of
Washington, D.C.-based Oceana recalls feeling skeptical on his way to Louisiana State
University (LSU). "You don't want me down
there; you know what I think about dispersants," he told Nancy Kinner of the University of New Hampshire, the organizer.
But the fluorometry data presented at
LSU showed that the dispersant was working and had broken up the big globs into
droplets between I and 10 micrometers-
and the microbial feast wasn't starving the

system of oxygen. So after 2 days of intense
debate, Short and the rest of the group gave
their approval in a report. "I was struck by
the fact that all 50 were in agreement that
continuing the subsurface injection was the
best option in a bad situation," recalls toxicologist Ronald Tjeerdema of the University
of California, Davis.
Since then, researchers have by and large
stuck with that opinion. NOAA estimates
that roughly 409,000 barrels of oil have been
dispersed underwater by the technique. Toxicity tests have suggested an acute risk of
dispersant-oil mixtures no greater than that
of oil alone. Daniels says some of the dis-.
persed oil has risen toward the surface, whil e
some has formed a loose band, or plume,
between 1000 and J300 meters in depth. No

negative impacts on deep-sea life have yet
been recorded, although NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco says one of the worst
case scenarios involving longer exposures
due to dispersed oil-big losses of spawning bluefin tuna popUlations-may not be
detectable for years. That's led some scientists to suggest that letting the oil rise to the
surface would have been a better move, as it
could be more easily collected.
Jacqueline Savitz, an environmental scientist with Oceana, says because oftne unknown
risks of dispersants, it was "a lose-lose"
decision-and despite optimistic projections
(p. 734), all the benefits and costs may not be
known for decades.
-ELI KINTISCH
With reporting by Erik $tokstad.
INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Yellow Fever Mosquito Shows Up in Northern Europe

AMSTERDAM-In the latest display of mosquitoes' predilection for modem travel, entomologists have found a small colony of the
tropical species Aedes aegypti-also known
as the yellow fever mosquito-in the Netherlands. The insects were found on and near
two facilities of a company that imports used
tires and presumably originated in the hot
southern part of the United States. Ae. aegypti
is an important vector
not just of yellow fever
but also of two other
viral diseases, dengue
and chikungunya.
The mosquitoes.
found by a team led by
Ernst-Jan Scholte of
the Dutch government's
Center for Vector Monitoring, don't pose a direct
public health threat and
are unlikely to survive
the winter, says Scholte. Still, scientists are
amazed, because the insects were last seen in
Europe more than 50 years ago. "You're kidding .... Really?" entomologist Paul Reiter of
the Pasteur Institute in Paris says when told
about the find. "Wow."
Ae. aegypti originated in Afiica but has colonized tropical and subtropical areas around
the world. It's notorious as the vector of the
dengue virus, which can cause severe malaise
and fever, unbearable jOint pains, and a fatal
syndrome called dengue hemorrhagic fever.
Ae. aegypti once roamed southern Europe as
well but probably disappeared after World
War II, says Reiter, perhaps in response to
736
But Ae. aegypti was not known to be such a

frequent stowaway. When Scholte's team first
caught the intruder in one of their traps, they
misidentified it as a tiger mosquito. which they
also found in the same area. When a genetic
test unmasked it as Ae. aegypti, HI couldn't
believe it, a tropical mosquito flying around
in Holland," says Scholte. The team believes
the most likely origin for both species is a tire
shipment from Miami-where both occurthat arrived in late May.
Both last summer and this year, tne team
also found a third foreign species, Ae. atropa/pus, or the American rock pool mosquito, near the
tire importer. That species inhabits the northern United States and
southeastern Canada and probably
would have little trouble establishing itself this far north in Europe,
says Scholte. But Ae. atropalpus
is not believed to be an important
disease vector.
The Dutch governmentForeign trade. Spraying started ata Dutch tire yard on 30]uly to wipe which ceased mosquito-conoutthree exotic mosquito species, indudingAedes aegypti (inset).
trol operations decades ago- '"
has hired Schaffner and another ~
has relentlessly colonized new territory over French expert to help get rid of all three spe
the past 2 decades, becoming a highly annoy- cies, using a two-pronged attack involving ;;
ing fixture in many Mediterranean countries, deltamethrin for adults and biological con- ~
from where it is now pushing northward trol for larvae. Schaffner believes it's possi- g
(Science. 16 May 2008, p. 864). The "tiger" ble to nip the incursion of all three species ~
is known to hitch a ride in secondhand tires, in the bud. But countries that monitor for ~
shipped around the world in containers. In the new invasions less rigorously may not be so
Netherlands, tiger mosquitoes have also been lucky, says Scholte. "It's the shape of things i.
found in greenhouses that import lucky bam- to come," says Reiter. "Everything can be ~
imported everywhere." -MARnN ENSERINK !5
boo, a popular plant from Asia.
DDT spraying. Although the Dutch climate
may be inhospitable for the species, a similar
transplantation to southern Europe could trigger a recolonization, says Francis Schaffner,
a French mosquito-control expert at the University of ZUrich in Switzerland.
The team found the mosquitoes during a
routine surveillance program aimed at keeping
out another species, the Asian tiger mosquito,
or Ae. albapictus, which can
transmit dengue and chikungunya as well. That mosquito
13 AUGUST 2010
VOL 329
SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
Published by MAS
008375
Now that the gusher that spewed oil for

85 days into the Gulf of Mexico has stopped,
scientists are wondering where it all went. A
federal report released last week should have
begun to answer that question. Instead, political spin and media hype transformed the scientists' message even before it was released.
According to one CNN reporter, the interagency report led by the Department of the
Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that of
the 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled, "75% has
been cleaned up by Man or Mother Nature."
Nothing in the report supports that interpretation. But there are mUltiple ways to read
the report's iconic pie chart while remaining grounded in fact. One is that responders have-with herculean effortintercepted 25% of the oil, leaving 75%
to have its way with the environment.
Under this interpretation, "raising the
flag and declaring victory is premature,"
says biogeochemist Samantha Joye of
the University of Georgia, Athens.
Another take on the report finds that
three-quarters of the oil is gone from the
gulf or is dispersed in the water in its most
easily degraded form. This remaining oil "is
degrading quickly right now," says marine
geochemist Edward Overton of Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge.
Fuzzy budget. Afederal report divvies up the oil
(top) but allows for uncertainties (bottom).
734
Overton and other optimists note that

today official maps from NOAA no longer
show any surface oil in the gulf. And the
"massive" deep oil plumes of media fame
now appear to have been faint shadows of
their public images. Resolving the inevitable
uncertainties and filling in the gaps of such an
early report will no doubt take many months.
Deepwater Horizon
Oil Budget
Based on Est1n1aet! release of 49 !nJillOl1 ba'(Els of OJI
'Oil in these three

categories is currently
Unified command
response operations
being degraded naturally
5%
3%
6%
Possible alternative estimates
13 AUGUST 2010 VOL 329
SCIENCE
PubUshed byMAS
The report's most certain conclusion was

that responders managed to collect or remove
about 25% of the oil released from the damaged well. Seventeen percent was collected
at the wellhead in an unprecedented technological feat. About 5% was burned at the surface, an exceptionally large proportion for
a U.S. spill, experts say. But skimmers captured only 3% of the total, despite the highprofile effort. Such meager results are to be
expected in the open ocean, says William
Lehr of NOAA's emergency response division in Seattle, Washington, who worked on
the report. Less than 0.1% had been recovered from beaches and marshes.
That leaves 75% of the spill that remained
in the environment, but just how it entered
it--as oily scum on the surface, as more readily degraded microscopic droplets at depth,
or as vapors into the atmosphere-is far less
certain. That's because these flows were calculated, not measured. Despite the seeming precision of the pie chart, "there's a large degree
of uncertainty," says Lehr. Uncertainties crop
up, for example, in calculations of"natural dispersion" involving the physics of oil and gas
jetting into seawater from the wellhead. These
calculations yield an estimate of how much
oil ends up dispersing as droplets smaller than
100 micrometers in diameter. That's the size
range that can drift away in a horizontal plume
the way dust can float in the air.
Add up all the uncertainties and they can
be considerable. There are uncertainties in
calculating the natural and chemical dispersion that produces deep plumes as well as dissolution in seawater or evaporation from the
surface. Then there is the l 0% uncertainty
in the total volume of the spill. All told, the ~
"residual oil"-what could not be measured ~
or estimated but is left to float as tarballs or be ~
washed ashore-could be as high as 39% of ~
the total or as low as 13%, by a simple account- ~
ing from charts in the report's supplement.
!i!
Perhaps the most muddled calculation ili
involves the fraction of oil that went into the ~
dreaded subsurface plumes. The media "ere- ~
Bted an image of an underwater river of oil," !E
says Steven Murawski, NOAA's chief scien- 1
tist for fisheries in Silver Spring, Maryland,
who is overseeing spill science for NOAA. Ii!
"In a glass, [plume water] looks like clear ~
seawater." He says that measurements of oil g
reveal a principal plume confined to depths ~
of 1000 meters to 1300 meters that in spots (5
www.sciencemag.org
008376
contained 1 to 2 parts per million of oil

(lor 2 milliliters in a cubic meter of seawater), Most parts of the plume, however, had
lower concentrations; farther than 10 kilometers from the wellhead, concentrations
were in the parts-per-billion range.
If something like 20% of the oi1-15,000
barrels a day-<iispersed into the deep sea, as
the report has it, precious little of it has been
showing up in plume observations. That raises
the issue of biodegradation and how quickly

microbes might be consuming the oil. The
report states that according to early signs, the
oil "is biodegrading quickly." It provides no
documentation for that claim, while hearsay
about observations awaiting publication and
public release is mixed. "The message I've
heard is that everywhere we look, oil is degrading extremely rapidly;' says Overton. Joye,
who has generated some of the relevant data,
is more cautious. "Sure it's getting degraded,

but we don't know how fast," she says.
Ultimately, determining the rates of oil
degradation, evaporation, and dilution in the
gulf rather than this report's parsing of the oil's
immediate fate will show where the oil went.
Such analysis should determine whether, as
Lehr puts it, "Mother Nature is almost always
the best removal mechanism."
-RICHARD A. KERR
o,....
o
GULF OIL SPILL
C\I
ci
An Audacious Decision in Crisis Gets Cautious Praise

How BP came to spray 1.1 million gallons
of chemical dispersants a mile beneath the
ocean surface is a story of scientists turning to desperate measures during desperate
times. And the government's decision to let
BP do so, among the most gutsy calls of the
entire Deepwater Horizon saga, was a classic
case of pitting the devil you know against the
devil you don't.
Roughly a week after the magnitude of
the gusher became clear in late April, former
Exxon-Mobil scientist Gerard Canevari
suggested that BP might try spraying chemicals called dispersants right at the billowing wellhead. Dispersants are usually used
in small quantities on the surface of the
ocean to break up slicks. Canevari's idea
would mean releasing giant amounts of the
fairly nasty chemicals in the cold and highpressure world of the ocean floor, something
that had never been tried. "At first we were
going, 'Yeah, right,'" recalls Charlie Henry, a
top scientist on Gulf of Mexico issues for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). "It was out of the norm"-a
massive proposed undersea experiment.
But, he says, the unprecedented nature of
the problem meant nothing was off the table.
l!l While outlining the pros and cons on white
~ boards in NOAA's New Orleans office, says
~ Henry, the basic tradeoff seemed clear. Every
~ drop of oil that made it to the surface was a
~ potential threat to coastal ecosystems, fish,
~ and marine mammals. Dispersants, which are
~ mostly detergents, break up globs of crude
~ into microscopic droplets that are more read~ ily devoured by microbes. So keeping as
~ much oil as possible below the surface would
5 give microbes a leg up in eating the oil. And
injecting dispersants into the hot, vigorously

mix:ing oil of the busted riser would presumably mean they would work especially effectively. Smaller quantities would then presumably be needed at the ocean surface.
Some drawbacks emerged during a conference call with 25 industry and academic scientists arranged by NOAA in early May: The
risks to undersea marine Iife--eggs, larvae,
fish, coral, and other bottom dwellers-were
largely unknown. One possibility was particularly frightening: Giving microbes a feast of
hydrocarbons might massively increase their
numbers, starving the water column of oxygen and creating dead zones.
www.sciencemag.org
SCIENCE VOL 329

Published byMAS
So government scientists proposed .a

three-tiered plan to try the undersea injection as safely as possible. First, teams across
the country began adapting existing undersea models of oil plumes to predict how they
might move, referencing data on nearby sea
life from the Department of the Interior. Second, they required that BP conduct aggressive monitoring, including ocean surfaceto-floor water sampling, toxicity tests using
zooplankton, and tests with fiuorometers,
which would continuously track the oil droplets. And if the dispersant injection created
unexpected effects during tests, an "adaptive
management" plan would enable the reds to
halt the procedure immediately.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Coast Guard agreed to the procedure on IS May. HI don't think I've had to
make a harder decision," EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson told reporters at the time. BP
deployed a specially built tube with tiny I>
13 AUGUST 2010
735
008377
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared By: Caitlyn Kennedy, Jen Austin
Reviewed By: Bill Conner
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator

The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the
government and independent scientific community to produce an estimate of just how
much oil has been skimmed, burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They have
developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator to determine where the oil has gone.
The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this oil
is moving and degrading,

Chemically
Dispersed
11
Burned
8%
3%
Dispersion
13%
Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator Shows what has happened to the oil.
Explanation of Findings
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command,
estimates that as of July 15 hetweeIi3~,' ..... <'hplfiTl~ls of oil had been released from the
~:~~~~:'~~~~~1~~t\:~'~@~~:W~t=~:f:e~!~~J2~~r)ERTG
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in
recovering a significant portion of the spilled oiL ~~ percent of the oil was captured
directly from the source by the riser pipe insertion tube or top hat systems. In addition,
burning and skimming operations collected just over %% percent of the oil.
008378
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
column. The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not
volatile dissolve into the water column or form residues such as tar balls. The
evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research and observations conducted
during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and
weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly SO,OOO.:Qattels of chemical dispersants.
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high
pressures into the water column, which caused some of it to spray off in small droplets
(less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
We know that naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant
amount of the oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there,
the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico
through natural seeps regularly .. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the
exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light crude oil from
this well is biodegrading quickly.
These estimates leave about %% percent of the oiL This oil is either at the surface as
light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and recovery efforts have removed roughly 1/3 of the
oiL Around aquart~r of the total has been naturally evaporated and anotb.et4uarter
dispersed into Gulf waters. The remaining amount, rou@1)ci!6 is on the surface, in tar
balls, on beaches, removed from beaches or has been biodegraded.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil and will issue daily surface
oil trajectories for as long as necessary. NOAA responders are working with the Unified
Command to develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead,
NOAA remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the
Gulf region will take time and continued monitoring and research.
008379
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget
What has happened to the oil?
The National Incident Command (NrC) assembled a ~cientitic team composed of government and
independent soieAtists specialists to produce and review an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed,
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a
tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what happened to the oil. The numbers in the
calculator are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this oil is moving and
degrading. The figure used for release!:! oil, 4.9 million barrels, is the most recent estimate announced
on August 2,2010 by the National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy
(DOE) scientists and engineers, led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Comment [wgc11: This is probably. mattor of

stylo, but til. word ""ensr" strikes me as .liUl. selfseiving.
. ' .
Based on these numbers, it is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead
removed one quarter of oil the released from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil naturally
evaporated or dissolved and just less than one quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of
operations) as small droplets into tIle-Gulf waters. The residual amount, just over one quarter, is either
on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from
the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments.
Canmtenf [wgc2.]:Tb,roommenton "ReSidual" ,
should ~""Ih.WOrd .ort\e~fromthethird line ..
up lromth. bottOm.
Based on estimated relerm'! of 4.9 M barrels of oil
'R",~iuUdl
oil indude~
oil that is on or Ius!

below t,t? surface d~
waalhliued
f~~lcu+J d-:U
tarbal >, h washed

a;hore or been
collc<:tcd from the
~hore. or some Is
burieo Ie ~and "nd
.edimenl:!>.
Federal
~~::;i:e",
SlIrnP.t1
~%
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
I
/
Dispersed
8%
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
008380
federal ResjJonse EJfor~. R-~.Spq!lS~ ef~qr!s. t()_ ~~a,I ~.i~.t~~_ ~\l_ n~~~_ ~ee.n. ~ggr_ess.i~~, :~s. ~ho.~. i!l. ~he. ______ ---- ~C:::Jii~:t[W~~T~W;rwhetheith~.1TII
pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 33% of the spilled oil. ThisieS~:'
=~:t':'j~~~a
includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat
unified command that,.nclude. tJie USCG; BOEM,
systems (17%) , burning (5%)
skimmi ng (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%)
Direct capture , burning
BP. and the staleS_ BP is th" le"Un ~ndu~gtl1e
0 , 0
0
T.espo~ urn:Jer so.ve.rnment OVMlIght BP:I.s paymg
and skimming remove the oil from the water entirely, while chemically dispersed oil remains in the
fortherespcnse, lsuggOstthatweconsidetdeleting
water until it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
the work."Federal" from the heading. ,
h::=.:.e.,
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 8% was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray offin small droplets. For the purpose of this
analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter ofa
human hair. Oil droplets that are this small remain in the water column where they then begin to
biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from coming
ashore in large surface slicks and make it more readily available for biodegradation. Chemical
dispersants were applied at the surface and below the surface, therefore the chemically dispersed oil
ended up both deep in the water column and at-just below the surface. Dispersion increases the
likelihood for the oil to be biodegraded both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is
biodegraded, dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oil and much of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse clouds, where it began to diffuse and biodegrade. Previous analyses have shown
evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in low concentrations, moving in
the direction of known ocean currents and decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal
Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2, htijJ:llecowatch.ncddc.noaagov/JAG/reports.html). Hth!!t was
chemicaI1ydispersedafthesurface'
'., " . ' ,
,"
,
ovedinto the
top io feet 6fthe water column as small droplets "arid could no longei-be'detected within hours of
dispersant application as it mixed with surrounding watersL ___
n n _ n __ m _ n ______
___ m m n n _ m
__
u_
Comment [j4]: CommentfromprLJ can't
m_
-,
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved
into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based on scientific research and
observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. Different evaporation rates are used for
fresh oil and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
Dissolution in the water column is distinct from dispersion. Dispersed oil is small droplets of oil, while
dissolution describes the process by which some individual hydrocarbon molecules from the oil separate
and dissolve into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water.
Residual: After accounting for recovery operations, dispersion, evaporation and dissolution, an
estimated 26% remains. This figure is a combination of categories that are difficult to measure or
estimate. It includes oil still on or just below the surface in the form of light sheen or tarballs, oil that
has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and
may resurface through time. This oil has also begun to degrade through a number of natural processes.
~r - Do we kn~w where
it goes?
;eomrilent [waCS]: t drafledthis'stalement' based

oii,~lts ofSMART monitoring that was ConduC1ed
during th.~ application of dispelSllllts_
008381
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water naturally
biodegrade. While there is more analysis to be done to quantifY the ~~~~~f.bj~d<:gr!id!l~i_o~ J.r!.tJ:!~__ ._ ...... .
Gulf, early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil
from this source is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA and DOE are working to
calculate a more precise estimate of this rate. It is well known that bacteria that break down the
dis~rsed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the
warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of
Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Explanation of Methods and Assumptions
Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate of the cumulative amount of oil released
over the course ofthe spill. The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
engineers, led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu. This group estimates that approximately 4.9 million
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead between Apri I 22, 20 10 and July 15,
20 I 0, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is:t 10% (cite:
Flow RateTechnfcai Group, website report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
4.9 million barrels ofoil.
or
Direct Measures and Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
wherever possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible.
The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational
reports. The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers
were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific
expertise~ Further information on these methods is available in Appendix A. These numbers will
continue to be refined based on additional information and further analysis.
Continued monitoring and research:
Our knowledge of the oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
Federal agencies and many academic and independent scientists are actively pursuing better
understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal government will continue to report
activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates and information can be found at
www.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
www.geoplatform.gov.
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amoiJnts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
responders are working with the Unified Command on monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurface scanning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA has carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf and
continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of dispersant and
crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA and NSF
funded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts.
C;ommerit [W'gc6]: I think !hat this word implies

too much' accurOcy-with ....peelto ",hat "an be done
'on estimating biodegradation raIeii,
008382
001 responders are working to ensure control ofthe well; to ensure accurate measurement of oil
released and oil remaining in the environment; and to mitigate impacts of oil to wildlife, natural
resources, and public lands. Scientists from DOE laboratories are working to ensure the accurate
measurement of oil released from the well and are investigating the rates of biodegradation of subsurface oil.
Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since the capping
of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
in the Gulf region will take time and continued monitoring and research.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 2010, contains
detailed explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
Note: The attached report (Appendix A) contains cylindrical images, which are an alternate way of
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. These cylindrical images cortibine,ti:le thr~
categories of chemically dispersed,.naturally dispersed, and evaporated ordissolved,into olle coiored
segment The iUlage onpage one ofAppendix A uses thecurnulati.vereleaseestiInate~t:4'9 M barrels,
which istbesame as thepjech~ used 'ah()ve.. Thll thri:eimagesrepresenNhe.act:cial:estirria~,aswen as
the upp(:rand.lowerbQund oft:l1e'lO.'Youncertaiiltyof theestimilte.
Appendix B: Acknowledgements
008383
Deepwater HorizoolBP Oil Budget

Authors
Jane Lubchenco, NOAA, DOC

Marcia McNutt, USGS, DOl
William Conner, NOAA, DOC
Mark Sogge, USGS, DOl
Mark Miller, NOAA, DOC
Stephen Hammond, USGS, DOl
Credits
The following scientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
David Mack (USGS) - Lead application developer
Jeff Allen (USGS) -Interface designer
Bill Lehr (NOAA) - Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffinan (USCG) Application requirements
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Technical advisors
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) - Project vision and management
Kevin Gallagher, Stephen Hammond and Martha Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
The following experts were consulted on the oil budget calculations, contributed field data, suggested
formulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
refine the analysis and this document will be updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio Possolo, NIST
Independent Scientists
Ron Goodman, U. of Calgary
AI Allan, SpiiTec
James Payne, Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh, Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env. Canada (ret)
Ali Khelifa, Env. Canada
Pat Lambert, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
Michel Boufadel, Temple Univ.
008384
Deepwater Horizon MC252 GulfIncident Oil Budget
Synopsis: In collaboration with the USCG, NOAA, and NIST, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has
developed a Web application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget, which
allows comprehensive tracking and graphical display of the daily and cumulative oil budget in the
Gulf.
Federal personnel collaborated to ensure that the oil budget tool supports absolute data integrity.
comprehensive data entry and management, and simple Web access, eliminating the need for
specialized software. The tool offers a basic user interface for daily data entry and reporting,
allowing rapid visualization of oil volumes in the Gulf.
The application allows:
National Incident Command personnel to input daily variables;

Scientific support staff to edit the computing program for the Oil Budget Model as improved
information becomes available;
Dynamic creation of graphs shOwing modeled low flow rate/maximum removal and high
flow rate/minimum removal scenarios; and
Generation of executive summaries, showing the most up-to-date calculated daily and
cumulative values.
The tool incorporates succinct descriptions, including assumptions and factors used for calculations
such as amount of oil burned, skimmed, or remained unaffected, in the online application and
printed reports.
For example: Skimmed oil is a rough calculation based on the daily reported amount of oily water
multiplied by a factored estimation of net oil content. The net oil factor is different for the Maximum and
Minimum removal scenarios. The skimmed oil estimate is very rough. The actual amount of skimmed oil
should ultimately be based on actual measurement.
The Oil Budget tool is being updated as new information becomes available and desired capabilities
are identified. Based on the rapid response to this incident, the USGS is poised to apply extensive
scientific and technical expertise to benefit other environmental emergencies.
Background: Since the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil-drilling rig, the (USGS) has
been actively involved with the National Incident Command Center, helping to inform decisions in
response to the ensuing oil spill. The USGS is collaborating with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) to provide scientific and technical expertise to aid the oil spiJI
management and recovery effort.
The USGS developed a Web application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil
Budget, to track the discharged oil and results of subsequent processes that affect oil volumes in the
Gulf. Secure Web architecture and a rapid application development process, instituted for other
Web-based applications used by USGS scientists, was used to construct the Oil Budget application,
synthesizing information collected and maintained by the USCG.
008385
Deepwater Horizon MCZSZ Gulf Incident on Budget

Synopsis: In collaboration with the USCG, NOAA, and NIST, the USGS has developed a Web
application, known as Deepwater Horizon MCZ52 Gulf Incident Oil Budget, whichtll.at allows
comprehensive tracking and graphical display of the daily and cumulative oil budget in the
Gulf.
Federal personnel collaborated to ensure that the oil tracking application supports absolute
data integrity. comprehensive data entry and management. and simple Web access.
eliminating the need for specialized software. The applicatjon offers a basic lIser interface
for daily data entlY and reporting. allowing rapid visualization of oil volumes in the Gulf.
........ --{
Scientific support staff to edit the computing program for the Oil Budget Model as
improved information becomes available:
Dynamic creation of graphs showing modeled low flow rate/maximum removal and
high flaw rate/minimum removal scenarios;
Incorporation of succinct descriptions. including assumptions and factors used for
calculations such as amount of oil burned. skimmed. or remained unaffected. in the
online application and printed reports: and
Generation of executive summaries. showing the most up-to-date calculated dailv
and cumulative values.
Since the April 20, 2010, blowout and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oildrilling rig, the u.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been actively involved with the National
Incident Command Center, helping to inform decisions in response to the ensuing oil spill.
The USGS is collaborating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to provide scientific and technical expertise to aid the oil spill management and
recovery effort. In partieslar, USGS sei8nee staFf participate if! a !"lew Rate Teelinical Greup
estaelisl!es aRsleEll:ly tA8 USGS Dil'8eter, 91'. MaFfia Mef>ltltt, te ealEldate the aiscllal'ge rates
aRe ealEulate aR 0','81"311 mass balance of oil g/';en siffel'eRt mitigatiaR aRd cleanup metliads.
The USGS developed a Web application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulflncident
Oil Budget, to track the discharged oil and results of subsequent processes that affect oil
volumes in the Gulf. Secure Web architecture and a rapid application development process,
instituted for other Web-based applications used by USGS scientists, was used to construct
the Oil Budget application, synthesizing information collected and maintained by the USCG.
The applisatieR effel'S a Basic !:lsel' iR1:el'faee fer daily aata ef!try aRe reparBRg, alla'lling
ra",ia vistlalisatieR gfail '.'gltlmes 11'1 the Calf.
!JSGS, ~IOA,\, NIST, aRe USCG selent/sos al'lelegisties pel'SoRRel collabarate te ensara tHat
tHe eil a-aekil'lg allPlieatigR saflllaFt5 ahsalate data integrity, cemflrekeasi'le aata ef!1iry and
maaagemeRt, aRe simple Wee assess, elimiRatiRg tRe Reee fer specializes saftware. Tile
aPlllieatial'l aUaws!
Natioflal IRaeeFlt Geml'l'laFla pel'S9nRei 1:9 iRP'tit daily \taFiables;
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
008386
ScieRtific SUPPSR staffts eeit the ESFflPHtiRg prsgFaFfl feF the Oil Ihu,lget Mseel as irRprsvea
iRfsFFflatisR be8Ff1es available;
DY'RaFflic creatisR sfgrapAs sRs'A'ing FflseeleElIElw tlsw rate/maJciFfll,lm FefHs';al aRe AigA
flsw rate/FfliRiml,lm rems'/al scellariss;
inesrpsFatisR sf SHCEinct eeseriptisRS, iREluEliRg assuFflptisRS aRe Caetsrs usee feF
caleulatisRs SI,ICA as aFflal,lRt sf sill3uFRee, sldFflfHeEl, aF remaineEi I,IRaffeetee, iR tRe sRIiRe
applieatisR aRe priRteEi Fepsrts; aRa
GeReFatisR sf eJcecuti'le sHmmaFies, sRswiRg the msst up ts eate calculateEi eaily aRa
cHfHHlati';e values.
TAe USGS team cSRtiRHes ts prsviae teeARieal SHpJ3SR ana iRtrselHce iRcremeRtal
imprS'lemeRts ts tThe Oil Budget tool is being updated as new information becomes
available and desired capabilities are identified. Based on the rapid response to this
incident, the USGS is poised to apply extensive scientific and technical expertise to benefit
other environmental emergencies.
008387
Daily actions by
incident command
personnel
Data and the oil

budget model
Periodic update by
Assumption and
authorized personnel factor review by
NOAA
Update rates,
estimates,
assumptions, and
olher supporting
figures
Input Daily Values
Data inputs - rates,

estimates,
assumplions, and
supporting figures
Scientific Review of
data inputs,
calculations, and
assumptions
"Oil Budget
Moder'
CalcJlation
based on Oil
Budget Formula
Technical Support (single, secure Web application)
Scientific Support
008388

High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) .. Through July 28 (Day 100)

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
008389
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-...
...
as
tI)
CI)
.c
1,000,000
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
Jun-201
Jul-2010
Expected Value- Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds

Report generated by mark,w,miller@noaa,govon 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT,
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
008390

Recovery .

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
008391
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) .. Through July 28 (Day 100)
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
UJ
400,000
GJ
350,000
as
.c
300,000
10..
10..
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul-201

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U,S, Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
008392
Reference Notes


clicking on the labels in the table) for-further information on the individual calculations and further
reference material.
Discharged
'Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut.
Background
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 ;20 AM MDT.
008393

Dispersed Naturally
more information.

Report generated by mark.w.miller.@noaa.govon 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coa,st Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
008394
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh ll oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
Measured amount removed via RIIT and Top Hat

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
The skimmed oil estimate is very rough
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
008395
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scientific calculation based on the ar:nount of chemical
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes seption of the report for reference material on report elements.
008396

IInland Recovery

008397
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) Through July 29 (Day 101)

1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
tn
Q)
a...
a...
1,000,000
cu
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

008398

Burned
Skimmed
Dispersant Used
o
53
o

008399

650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
fI)
CI)
a..
a..
400,000
350,000
CI:S
.c 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
oj
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07/30/2010 08:56 AM MDT.
008400
Reference Notes


The Cumulative Disposition 'of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a represen,tati0r:t of the total amount of oil
reference material.
Discharged
Background
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
008401
Recovered via RIIT and Top Hat

the Q4000 are reported by BP, entered daily by l\Iationallncident Command personnel, and used in the
Dispersed Naturally
oNo natural surface dispersion assumed
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oll"removed." See background documentation for
more information.
oMost evaporative losses occur during the first 24 hours

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nation.al
008402
Reported amount of oil burned

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
008403
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) burn rate standards are used
Different rates for
non~emulsified
and emulsified oil
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

008404
OI ..... (KS-l ...tM . . .~~Splll

~
....
"-~~~
June 24, 2010
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ORR
These formulas are for response purposes only and

should not be used to assess environmental damage.
008405
Behavior of spilled oil

Cleanup of oils is generally designed to enhance or add to natural removal mechanisms.
Figure 1 shows the processes that can happen to oil on the water surface.
evaporation
photo-oxidation
,I
spreading
oil slick
air
water
dispersion
dissolution
sedimentation
emulsification
biodegradation
Figure 1, Natural weathering processes
This spill has the added challenge of originating from a highly turbulent, two-phase, warm
jet a mile beneath the water surface. Because of its size and peculiar nature, the
Deepwater Horizon Spill is not amenable to many standard oil fate and behavior
assumptions. Experts in oil spill science and experienced spilJ professional's were
contacted for their views on how these standard assumptions should be modified for this
incident.
ICS 209
The Incident Command System (ICS) was developed to provide federal, state, and local
governments, as well as private and not-for-profit entities, with a consistent framework
for the preparation for, response to, and recovery from any incident or event, regardless
of the size, nature, duration, location, scope, or complexity. The ICS Form 209 provides
the mass balance information that the Incident Command needs to assess the size of the
threat. Currently, the information equivalent to the Form 209 is in an Excel spreadsheet.
The recommended structure for the flowchart is shown in Figure 2.
008406
subsurface
subsurface
n8ltural
chemical
diapera ion
diaperaion
surface oil
1... i.I ............ ..
burn~d
surface'" oil
. . . . . . . . . . . UIIIIIIII
evaporation
surface 011
TIme
chemically
dispersed
surface oil
collected
surface Ilil
remaining
Figure 2. Speadsheet logic diagram
Use of Multiple scenarios:
The program computes a best case, worst case, and, possibly, an expected scenario. The
worst case assumes maximum release and minimum removal. Best case will do the
reverse. Depending upon the requests of the NIC, most likely values may be wanted and
so are also provided. Most likely scenarios use average release estimates and average
expected removal. Since some of the input terms will have different values depending
upon whether we are looking at best case, worst case or most likely case, they are listed
as
TERM = (likely, best, worst)
Definition of Terms:
008407
j = day of spill. The riser was cut Oune 3) on j = 45
VSO)= volume in bbl of surface oil on day j

VRO) = oil release rate in bbl/day on day j
VREO) = effective release rate in bbl/day on day j
VDTO) = volume in bbl of oil directly collected by Top Hat or RITT on day j
VDO)= total oil volume in bbl dispersed in bbl/day on day j
VCO) = total oil volume in bbl of chemically dispersed oil on day j
VDBO) = oil volume in bbl dispersed at the bottom on day j
VDCO) = oil volume in bbl chemically dispersed at bottom on day j
VDNO) = oil volume in bbl naturally dispersed at bottom on day j
VCBO) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the bottom on day j
VCSO) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the surface on dayj
VDSO) = volume in bbl chemically dispersed at the surface on day j
VBUO)= volume in bbl burned on day j
VOWO)= volume in bbl of oily water collected on day j
VNWO) = net oil volume in bbl collected on day j
VEO) = volume in bbl of oil that either evaporated or dissolved on day j
Use of Expert advice:
In order to capture a reservoir of knowledge and experience on this problem, a wide
variety of experts were consulted and asked to comment on a preliminary version of this
document. As of June 23, the following experts had responded
Exper1;:
affiliation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
Al Allan
SpilTec
James Payne
Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton
LSU
Juan Lasheras
UCSD
Albert Venosa
EPA
Merv Fingas
Env Canada(ret)
Ali Khelifa
Env. Canada
Robert Jones
NOAA
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
Victoria Broje
Shell
008408
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.
The degree and detail of the response varied. In many cases the expert simply promised a
more thorough analysis at a later date. One expert was unable to respond due to a
confidentiality agreement with BP. Response by an expert does not indicate agreement
with the assumptions or conclusions in this document.
Leakage
Rules:
VRO) =(30,000,20,000,40,000) ifj < 45
=(40,000, 35,000, 60,000) if j ~ 45
VREO)
=VRO) - VOT(j)
Bullets:
Uses flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements

Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut
Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) Plume Team produced estimates of the total
leakage prior to Top Kill or severing the riser by using a variant of Particle Image
Velocimetry (PIV). While difficult in practice, PIV is simple in principle. In this method a
flow event, e.g. an eddy or other identifiable item, is observed at two consecutive video
frames. Distance moved per time between frames gives a velocity, after adjustment for
viewing angle and other factors. Repeated measurement over time and space give an
estimated mean flow. The spatially adjusted flow field multiplied by cross-section area of
the plume gives a total volume flux. This is then multiplied by liquid fraction. The Team
used the same method to estimate leakage after the riser cut but prior to capping the flow.
Hence, their results provide a consistent method for estimating leakage for the entire spill
duration. The maximum and minimum values represent the extreme bounds reported.
The Plume Team did not offer a 'best guess' answer but rather gave a range representing
the most likely flow (as opposed to maximum-minimum bounds). I have used the upper
limit of that range as likely flow.
Other FRTG and DOE teams estimated the flow either prior to the severing of the riser or
after this operation. Flow values both higher and lower than the suggested ones in this
report were generated by these other teams.
The complete FRTG set of reports should be availab~e shortly.
008409
Dispersed oil
Kdl = (0.2, 0.3, 0.1) = natural dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd2 =(0.8, 1, 0.5)
=chemical dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd3 =(0.25, 0.5, 0.1) =chemical dispersion effectiveness at the surface
VDCO) = 20*Kd2*VCBO) but not to exceed VREO)
VDN(j) (VRE(j)- VDCO))*Kdl
VDBU) =VDCU) +VDNU)
VDS(j) 20*Kd3*VCSO) but not to exceed VSU-l)
VCO) = VDSO) + VDCU)
VD(j) = VDBU) + VDSU)
Bullets:
Droplet smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed

No natural surface dispersion assumed
Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
ITOPF 'planning purpose' dosage of20:1 used as estimate for successful chemical
dispersant application
The oil and gas leaking out at the Deep Horizon oil spill are all Dbuoyant and, therefore would,
neglecting other processes, rise to the Dsurface. However, one cannot neglect other processes.
Originally. the aescaping plume will be a mixture of gas and oil, with additional gas adissolved
within the oil. According to the Clarkson University model aCDOG, this plume will maintain
its integrity for at most a few hundred Dmeters with strong positive buoyancy. Several
competing processes will ainterfere with this process. The gas will rise faster than the oil,
a'slipping' past the droplets but will also form hydrates with the asurrounding water. Water will
be entrained into the plume by turbulence athat will also contribute to changing droplet size
distribution of the aoil mixed into the plume. These oil droplets will rise to the surface abased
upon some form of Stokes law, where the rise velocity increases with droplet size. For small
enough oil droplet size, the rise velocity is so asmall that competing processes affect it before it
can make it to the asurface. These processes include dissolution, biodegradation, and aparticleoil interaction. These processes will vary in strength adepending upon where the oil droplet is
located. Field measurement may ahelp to quantify these processes but, as a standard cut-off
value, 70-100 microns is used as the minimum droplet size below which that droplet ais
considered permanently dispersed.DD Because oil droplet formation is the product of multiple
shear interactions caused by the turbulent flow, the droplet size probability distribution is
008410
described by a log normal function shown below (x is droplet size)

P(x)
For natural dispersion, Delvigne's model is the standard approach to estimating the fraction of
oil dispersed into the water column. Delvigne, in a series of experiments at Delft University,
found that the mean oil droplet size, d, could approximately be related to the energy density
dissipation rate, E, by the expression
so we get proportionately more small droplets as the energy density dissipation rate increases.
For most surface spills, the turbulent energy comes from breaking waves. For the conditions in
the Gulf during this incident, this translates to an E of about 100 J per cu. m. per sec or larger.
The NOAA oil fate and behavior model, ADIOS2, suggests that if this spill Doccurred at the
surface under these conditions, less than 8 % of the oil would disperse. However, it is not
breaking waves but the turbulence at the leak that is forming these oil droplets. In this case, E
would be expected to be much larger near the riser exit, causing the mean droplet size to be
smaller and dispersed oil percentage to be larger.
If we attempt to compare this blowout to the Ixtoc 1, different reports for that case claimed that
between 3% to 26% of ended up in the water column or on the bottom. Several of the experts
consulted on this question suggested that the differences between the two incidents were large
enough that estimating dispersed oil by analogy to Ixtoc would be inappropriate.
Some limited data exists from the RV Brook McCall Survey LISST Dmeasurements performed
by the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. If one, Dextrapolates their results to the entire spill, a
dangerous exercise with a high degree of Duncertainty, then one can conclude that perhaps 30%
Dof the oil released during non-dispersant operations were dispersed into Dthe water column.
However, since the samples were subsurface, they Dmay be preferentially sampling the droplet
distribution formed Dinitially. Payne reports plumes of oil droplets at depth over 2 km. away
from the source with larger droplets on the top of the plume and smaller below. This would be
consistent with a large amount of dispersion and weak buoyancy.
Most of the experts that offered suggestions on natural dispersion concluded that dispersion
would be higher than the amount predicted for a surface spill because of increased turbulence
in the oil-gas jet and reduced viscosity related to the high temperature of the exiting oil.
008411
The droplet size distribution in the plume is greatly affected by viscosity and surface tension.
Since some of the lighter ends are lost through dissolution on the oil journey to the surface and
since the surface oil rapidly emulsifies, the viscosity of the surface oil is quite high compared to
the heated oil at the source. The seas were also relatively calm. For oil budget purposes, the
surface oil is assumed. to have negligible natural dispersion.
The addition of chemical dispersants significantly lowers oil surface tension and hence reduces
mean droplet size. The subsurface dispersant application was ideal for the introduction of
dispersants; direct contact between oil and the dispersant, fresh oil, and high turbulence. The
ITOPF Technical Information Paper for chemical dispersant usage recommends for planning
purposes to use one part dispersant for 20 parts dispersed oil. They point out that spraying
equipment is often pre-configured to achieve this. Therefore, this ratio was used to define a
fully successful dispersant application.
Some experts were concerned that the entrained gas would reduce the effectiveness of the
dispersant application by preventing contact between oil and surfactant. They also thought that
the time of contact might be insufficient to achieve optimum effect. Their concerns are
captured in the choice for minimum effectiveness.
Suggested research
More complete sampling of dispersed oil near the source coupled with a subsurface plume
model to translate the sample results into a better estimate of dispersed oil volume.
Characterization of the turbulence energy spectrum for the leak.
Burning Losses
Bullets
ASTM burn rate standards used
Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil.
For ignition to occur, the oil film must generally be greater than 2 mm. Since this is
thicker than oil slicks that are allowed to spread naturally, the oil must be contained in
special fire-proof booms. Spilled oU sometimes entrains water, forming a stable emulsion.
Emulsions that contain more than 15% water are difficult to ignite and emulsions that
contain more than 50% water are almost impossible to ignite. High winds and waves may
prevent burn operations. Oil burns with a 'regression rate' of approximately 0.05 mm/sec
(slightly more than a tenth of an inch per minute) Part of the oU is turned into smoke. The
actual percentage depends upon the size of the burn and other factors but usually is in the
range of 10-15% of the mass of the oU. Burning is a highly efficient oil removal
mechanism. A successful burn will remove 90-95% ofthe ignited oil. The reported burn
rates for the Deepwater Horizon oil are 0.048 mm/sec for non-emulsified oil and 0.34
mm/sec for emulsified oils. While these are in line with ASTM standards, Fingas, based
upon burn studies, suggests that the emulsified oil burn rate should be closer to 0.24.
008412
However, burn volumes are not reported by percentage emulsified oil burned and nonemulsified oil burned. Therefore, without additional data, it is hard to separate out the
two in a spreadsheet.
Suggested research
Examine the possibility to specify the amount of emulsified oil fraction that is burned in
any burn operations.
Evaporated and dissolved oil

Evl = (0.37,0.44,0.33) :; evaporation rate on freshly surfaced oil (includes dissolution)
Ev2 (0.04, 0.06, 0) evaporation on day-old oil
VEO)
=(VREO) - VDBO) - VBUO))*Evl+(VREO-l) - VDBO-l) - VBUO-l))*Ev2
Bullets:
Evaporation formulas include dissolution as well
Largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
Most evaporative losses occur during the first 24 hours
'Pseudo-component' approach used in estimate
Figure 3 shows a chromatogram of the fresh oil from the reservoir. Like all crude oils, this
oil is composed of thousands of different hydrocarbons, each with slightly different
physical and chemical properties.
300000
;2.8()OOO
200000
2040000
220000
200000
100000
180000
140000
1:;Z0000
100000
008413
Figure 3 Chromatogram of fresh oil
Using Raoult's Law, the vapor pressure of the total oil is assumed to be a weighted
average of the individual components. Most evaporation models assume that the oil can
be treated as a well-mixed fluid so that evaporative losses are not dependent upon any
particular hydrocarbon being impeded to make it to the oil-air interface. This 'well-mixed'
assumption allows, with suitable modification, the use of evaporation estimation
techniques developed for homogeneous liquids. The driving factor for evaporation will be
the effective vapor pressure of the oil and the limiting factor will be the ability of the wind
to remove the oil vapor from the surface boundary layer.
The exception is a model proposed by Environment Canada that yields lower estimates
for evaporation based upon diffusion limitations within the oil itself. Figure 4 shows their
estimate for evaporation for this type of crude.
'"
L.
~f5
I.
!=
t
TiI'MIIDIrn.rtnI
Figure 4 Evaporation of SL crude according to Environment Canada.
According to their model, evaporation is rapid but limited with a total loss of
approximately 30%. Their model, however, assumes a cohesive slick, not the widely
scattered pieces that make up this spill. Nevertheless Fingas reports that evaporation of
the oil would probably occur in a massive jump as it seems a deep-sea release does this to
the oil. He carried out a series of high pressure water releases during the sub-sea
programs a decade ago and found that roughly 2/3 of the 5-day weathering amount at the
relevant temperature was released nearly immediately. The volatiles are gone rapidly and
the oil quickly emulsifies. This seems to be somewhat confirmed by observations by LSU
experts. Overton notes a subsurface sample appeared fresh but had the naphthalenes
completely missing. He speculated that this sample was deep oil that has never gotten to
the surface and the aromatics have dissolved into the water column. Certainly,
dissolution is a competing process to evaporation for this incident since, in general, the
more volatile hydrocarbons are also the most soluble.
For the purpose ofthe oil budget calculations, the more standard pseudo-component
method refined by Payne was used. The oil is postulated to consist of a limited number of
components, with each component corresponding to one of the cuts from the distillation
data for the oil of concern. Each component is characterized by a mole fraction and a
vapor pressure. Each component is composed primarily of a few alkanes and the
properties of the components are based on the average of the alkane properties. Based
008414
upon data on the oil composition provided by BP, the method suggests that as much as
46% of the oil can be lost to evaporation over several weeks on the sea surface. However,
the greater portion is lost in the first two days.
LSU/NOAA measured the composition of weathered oil collected from the sea surface on
16 May using GC/MS, and analyzed the results using the pseudo-component evaporation
model. They found that the weathered oil sample had lost 38% of its mass to the
combination of evaporation and dissolution.
For oil budget purposes, it does not matter if a hydrocarbon molecule is lost to
evaporation or dissolution. It is effectively removed from cleanup operations. Therefore,
the suggested evaporation constants include dissolution. While most of the evaporative
losses occur in the first day, there are further losses as the slick ages. The spreadsheet
formulas aHow for second day losses.
The evaporation will cause changes to the remaining surface oil, increasing density and
viscosity. The oil also shows a strong tendency to emulsify and to form tar balls. Both of
these mechanisms will slow evaporative. Past spills in the Gulf have produced an "M&M"
phenomena where fresh interior oil is surrounded by a crust of more weathered oil.
Suggested research:
Samples should be taken and chemically analyzed for oil from above the leak source as it
first surfaces, as well as for weathered oil close to shore. The former provides data on the
extent of dissolution while the latter gives an estimate to the amount lost to long-term
evaporation after surfacing.
Skimmed Oil
Kow= (0.2,0.4,0.1) =net oil fraction of oily water
VNWO)=Kow*VOWO)
Bullets:
Very rough estimation
Amount should be based upon actual measurement
The estimated oil content of the skimmed product was increased based upon suggestions
by oil company experts. However, the original recommendation for actual sampling of the
barge oil remains.
Floating oil
VSO)
=VSO-1) +VREO) - VEO) - VNWO) - VBUO) - VDO)
008415
BuHlets:
Includes both floating and 'beached' oil

Much of the surface oil is near neutral buoyancy
Surface oil category includes not only oil actually on the surface but that oil that has
washed ashore or mixed with sediment in the nearshore and sank. It is difficult to
determine the volume of this oil directly because standard visual volume estimations are
highly unreliable. The best current method is the NASA ER-2j AVIRIS system but even
this instrument is unable to estimate tar ball volume.
008416


Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62,200 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 52,700 bbl on July 14, 2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/0212010 05:30 PM MDT.
008417
1,500,000
1,250,000
en 1,000,000
...CD...
cc
.a
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
1- Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2010
Deepwater Horizon IVIC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/021201005:30 PM MDT.
008418

Higher Flow Estimate - Through August 01 (Day 104)
* All unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
*' Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty .
... Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 58,022 bbl on July 14, 2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
008419

1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-......
fI)
CD
1,000,000
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-2010

.
008420

Lower Flow Estimate - Through August 01 (Day 104)
All unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

*' Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty .
Maximum discharge ranged from 55.956 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 47.472 bbl on July 14. 2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02/201005:30 PM MDT.
.
008421

1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
tn
800,000
(I)
""-
700,000
.a
600,000
ftJ
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-2010

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. GeQlogical Survey in cooperation with the National
008422
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining on the Surface


The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph u provides a representation of the total amount of oil
clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations and additional
reference material.
Discharged
estimated that the discharge rates ranged from 62,000 bbVday at the start of the incident to 53,000
bbl/day when the well was capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 20-21),
decreaSing reservoir pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day
PreviolJs Fixed Flow Rate

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02/201005:30 PM MDT.
008423

Dispersed Naturally
docu'!lentation. The following assumptions and factors apply:
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 08/0212010 05:30 PM MDT.
008424

Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.

008425
Dispersant Used
personnel. It is an actual measurement of the total dispersant used via aI/ methods employed.
Oil Remaining

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/0212010 05:30 PM MDT.
008426


Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/22/2010 01 :39 PM MDT.
008427
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
fI)
Ci) 1,000,000
......
ro
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/22/2010 01 :39 PM MDT.
008428

, All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

008429

700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
en
450,000
--. 400,000
CD
-.
co
.D
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
30-Apr
15-May
Expected Value -
30-May
14-Jun
29-Jun
14-Jul

008430
Reference Notes


reference material.
Dispersant Used
Burned
cumulative totals.
Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil

008431

Recovered via R ITT and Top Hat

Command personnel, and used in the calculation of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of aU
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scienti'fic calculation based on the amount of chemical
Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed.
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/2212010 01 :39 PM MDT.
Oceanic and AtmospheriC Administration.
008432
Dispersed Naturally
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oilllremoved." See background documentation for
more information.

008433
Discharged
over time in the data behind the application basecl on analyses by the FRTG of changing dynamics in
-Discharge rates use 'flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
Background
improved estimate is based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut
'AAA data which

Report generated by mark.w.miller@ooaa.gov on 07/2212010 01 :39 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material 00 report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. GeOlogical Survey in cooperation with the National
008434

Higher Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)
All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty.
Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 58,022 bbl on July 14,2010.

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/201008:38 PM MDT.
008435
Higher Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)

1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-...... 1,000,000
CI)
CD
co
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-201 0
1- Expected Value -
Jun~2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
008436

Lower Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)
All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty.
Maximum discharge ranged from 55.956 bbl on April 22. 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14, 2010.

Report generated by mark.w.mlller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
008437
Lower Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)
Expected Value -

Report generated by mark,w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
008438
Reference Notes

into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via Top Hat), and the

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph u provides a representation of the total amount of oil
clicking on the labels in the table) forfurther information on the individual calculations and additional
reference material.
Discharged
On July 31,2010, the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) released new government estimates for the
Deepwater Horizon incident based on the best available data. The FRTG estimated that the discharge
rates ranged from 62,000 bbVday at the start of the incident to 53,000 bbl/day when the well was
capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor in the best government
estimate was used to create a Higher Flow Estimate and a Lower Flow Estimate report in the Oil Budget
Tool.
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 20-21),
the FRTG estimate begins on April 22, 2010. In general, the discharge rate trended down over time due
to decreasing pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day 45),
resulted in an estimate of discharge increase of approximately 4%.

estimations from the FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements. This method was chosen at the time as
the best available process and because the same measurement method was used pre- and post-riser
cut. On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was
announced. The most likely flow rate of oil at that time was estimated between 35,000 and 60,000
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/31/201008:38 PM MDT.
Oceanic and AtmospheriC Administration.
008439
barrels per day. This improved estimate was based on more and better data that was available after the
riser cut -- data which helped increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy of the estimate at that
time.

Dispersed Naturally
Evaporated or Dissolved .
-Evaporation is the largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil .

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
008440

Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
008441
Dispersant Used .
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/311201008:38 PM MDT.
008442

,. All unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

-. Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62,200 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 52,700 bbl on July 14, 2010.

008443

1,500,000
1,250,000
-......
th
1,000,000
Cl)
m
..c
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
1- Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

008444

AU unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty .
... Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 58,022 bbl on July 14, 2010.

008445

1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
en
CI)
I..
I..
1,000,000
as
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/03/201009:43 AM MDT.
008446


Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty
Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14, 2010.

008447

1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
-......
700,000
.c
600,000
tn
CD
tel
800,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
May-201O
Jun-201
Expected Value -
JUI-201
Aug-201O

008448
Reference Notes


clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations and additional
reference material.
Discharged
estimated that the discharge rates ranged from 62,000 bbllday at the start of the incident to 53,000
bbllday when the well was capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 20-21 ),
decreasing reservoir pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/031201009:43 AM MDT.
008449

Dispersed Naturally
008450

Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
-Different rates for nonwemulsified and emulSified oil

008451
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

See end notes section of the report 10r reference material on report elements.
008452
DRAFT 7.29
Deepwater HorizonIBP Oil Budget Calculator
Oil, a complex mixture of hydrocarbon molecules, begins to change its properties as soon as it is
released into the environment. Cleanup of oil is generally designed to enhance or add to natural
removal mechanisms. The National Incident Command has assembled leading experts in spilled
oil behavior to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed, burned, contained,
evaporated and dispersed. They have developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, that
graphically displays the likely fate of the Deepwater HorizonlBP oil.

Based on 60,000 barrels/day flow rate
"'Remaining oil is
either at the surface
as light sheen or
II
weathered tar balis,

has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
immed
3%
Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
The Flow Rate Technical (h-oup (FRT(J)~ assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that,
as of July 15, 15et\ye~~:3~?"'Itiini~fi~~~1$~f?ilhadbee~relea~edfrOInthe [)~epwaterHoriz0nIBP
wellhead. (*W1J.en~eriilt:~,l1eW;FR,1't1'~ow:ra~e;Ftbtiln:sea.pe~l:i;:84jUSt:tl).i;s:iu1tdthe'Perntages'itI
tb.eoilbudget)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oil. %% percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
008453
the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
collected just over %% percent of the oil.
Based upon scientific analysis of samples of the spilled oil, a large fraction of this relatively light
crude oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. Much of the remaining surface
oil formed water-in-oil emulsions, giving the reddish color as seen in images of the floating oil.
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 5();O()QJ)~eIs of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high turbulence into the water column,
which caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human
hair).
We know that naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the
oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.. While there is more analysis
to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light
crude oil from this well is biodegrading quickly.
After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, %% percent remains. This oil is either at
the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 113. of the
oil. Around a quartet of the total has been naturally evaporated and anotberqUarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, fQus1i1yhI 6 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
beaches or has been biodegraded.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil and will issue daily surface oiJ trajectories
for as long as necessary. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop
monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oiL
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, NOAA
remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts .
of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued
monitoring and research.
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
explanation of calculation methods.
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: This analysis is based on direct measurements where
possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The
numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports.
The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a
008454
broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional
infonnation and further analysis.
008455
DRAFT 7.29
The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the govenunent and
independent scientific community to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed,
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They have developed a tool, called the Oil Budget
Calculator to determine where the oil has gone. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much
oil was released and how this oil is moving and degrading.

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
The Flow Rate Technical Group (F~T(}), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 b~tWeen3~~"t1[t1.ii,9)l~~itrt~i~ of oil ~adb~en released from the. Deepwater H()riz0niBP
wellhead. (*When,ann..oUr1ced:~he.WFf{;1'G(flbw:tat~l,tQ~';esEapewmatljusfthisand.thepercelltagesi)ln
the.oilbudget~)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successfuJ in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oiL %% percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
collected just over %~ percent of the oil.
008456
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The
volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volatile dissolve into the water
column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research
and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation rate is used
for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent ofthe oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50;OOOhatrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high pressures into the water column, which
caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly .. While there is more analysis
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 113 of the
oil. Around aquarler of the total has been naturally evaporated and an(lilierqqarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, totiglily:1/6 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil and will issue daily surface oil trajectories
monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts
of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued .
monitoring and research .
. See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
information and further analysis.
008457
DRAFT 7.29
The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the government and

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
The Flow Rate Tec ical G!OUP (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
l1Il
as of July 15be~eell':3..'5ll!ini~n~kafrels of oil had beenreleased from the Deepwater HorizonIBP
wellhead. (*WhenannbUnced,newFRT(J:flowrate/totalescape will adjust this ana the percentages in
the oil budget.)
collected just over %~ percent of the oil.
008458
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1I~ of
the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and artotherq,J,laiier dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, roughly 1/16 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
from beaches or has been biodegraded.
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, federal
scientistsNOA.A remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will
take time and continued monitoring and research.
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from J1.l1.y:26, for detailed
numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports.
008459
DRAFT 7.29
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. TAB)' Have aeveloflea aloe!, esHea the Oil BHaget
Calel:llatoF to eeteffiliRe WHere tHe oil H!l:S gelReA tool has been developed to track and document where
the oil has gone. The numbers documenting thetotaloil discharged are based on best estimates of how
much oil was released fi-om the well and ~6W, this {lil is mo:vingand ~egrading" "
..
, ..... .

'Remaining oil Is
either at the sUlface
as light sheen or
weathered tar balls.
has been
biodegraded, or has
already ~ome a.hare
onbeache .
Figure 1: oii Budget Calculator- Shows whathas happened to the oil.

The Flow Rate Technical Group(FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 ~tWe~Jj~~~;rnil1ioIlJ)arrels of Oil. had been ~Ieased .from the Deepwater HorizonIBP
wellhead. (~~enill'!ll!')tin~;.neWrRl'Gfl~wt~te'IiQtaI -escape,w\iladjustthlsiindthe percentages in
~e'9~bliagQt.~
,<:
~: COmment [SEH1]; How would this affect

d .iSO.bar.8e1 ThiS. i'.lIOt. <"","stent.with thedefln.itiOO
in the oil budget toot .
.
comment'[SEH2]:WhatiftheFRro
comes
back with. hi & lOw estimate, .How will you

desoribe.that there? em we ;"ywith certainty there
i. now .ubsurfaceoihn... thathasnofbeen
d~"ted? This figuro su8sestthat number of
.60;OOObjxl is 'THE NUMBER..
.
008460
collected just over %Sio percent of the oil.
It is estimated that %% percent ofthe oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The
%% percent of the oi I has dispel'$ed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly S(},OOObiuTels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.r While there is more analysis
beaches.
In summary. burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly ll~ of
the oil. Around ~quft:rter of the total has beennaturally evaporated and angtlle,rqualter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, totigll1yl/~ is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
scientistsWGAA remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts ofthis spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from JtiIYZti. for detailed
008461
008462
DRAFT 7.29

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 betiyeen3'75'iniVi.b!t;patiels of oil had been released from the Deepwater Horizon/BP". '
wellhead. (~Whell~oUIlt?(f~!p~W~fR.;tqt1o\'r~ie.jl)9!~r:e~~a,lleWili~adjllstth1sand thepercentag~;fu
fuebirbudgei,)
Asshown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
008463
dispersed by the application of nearly 50;OOO.baiTel$ of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
oiL Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, %% percent remaiI)s.This oil is either at
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1I~ of
the oil. Around a.quarter of the total has been. naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, rpughly/1/~ is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
scientistsNOl\l... remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July26, 2010, for detailed
explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in collaboration
with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
008464
008465
DRAFT 7.29
independent scientific community to produce an estimate ofjust how much oil has been skimmed,

'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered tar balls.
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
as of July 15 bet:Ween-3::Sinillion;liairels of()il. had beenr~leasedfrom the DeepwaterllorizonIBP ..
weI !head. (!When announced,newFRTGI1ow'rate:rtotal.esCapewill adjust this and thepercenmgesin
the oil.bu<iget:)
008466
column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on previous analysis of
similar oil from the Gul f.seiemilie reseaFoA al'ld 66S61",atieflS eOl'ldueted dtlfiflg tAe De6f)water Haflall'l
tooideffi. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most accurate
number.
dispersed by the application of nearly S{),OOO.barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
as a result ofthe oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high pressures into the water column, which
caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns the diameter of a human hair).
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularlY7. While there is more analysis
to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf. early indications are that the light
crude oil from this well IS biodegrading quickly.
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughlyi/,}1 of
the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another'quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, toughly 111& is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead. federal
scientistsNQAA. remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulfregion will
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulfincident Budget Tool Report from July2(i. for detailed
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: This !iflell),sisThe Oil Budget calculations -itrare based on
direct measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements
were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in
daily operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best
008467
available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be
refined based on additional information and further analysis.
008468
DRAFT 7.29
Deepwater HorizonfBP Oil Budget Calculator

'Remaining oil is
either at the ~urface
aslign! sheen or
weathered tar baits,
hils been
biodegraded. or has
already come ashore
on beaches,
The Flow Rate Technical Oroup (FRTO), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 between. 3"S.millicm barrels of oil had. been rel.eased from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead. (*When announced,.new FRTGflow rate IfotaleScapewill adjust.this andtluipercentages in
the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure I), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oiL %% percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
008469
column or form residues such as tar balls. Tfie eYaj3oratiofl rate estiFflate is easea Oil seiefltifie resear6fi
ana eesePo'atiefls 60flal:leteS Sl:Iriflg tfie Deej3water Herizofl ifl6ieieflt. A different evaporation rate is used
%% percent of the oil
has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly $O;OOOiBaire1s of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
the fact that oil enters the GulfofMexico through natural seeps regularly . While there is more analysis
After accounting for response operations, dispersion and evaporation, %% percent remains. This oil is
either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come
ashore on beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1/3 of the
oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, roughly 116 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
for as long as ~ecessaJ)tt-!Q~_A_~esQ~_~~_C?r~_~~_~~_~~!!1_S.~!!~_~h<?_Yn\~<?~__C;:_<?~_~~n~_~~_~~_~~_I~p.......... ____ --.-monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts
of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued
monitoring and research.
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from
Ju]y:~(),
for detailed
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: This ~Oil Budget tool calculations areis based on
direct measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements
were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in
daily operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best
available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be
refined based on additional information and further analysis.
CominentOKll:Trajcctulriosareprtibabthly I
el)dingearlynelrtweek-Sho dwereinove e BSl
part pfthe sentence?,
008470
DRAFT 7.29
oil was released and how this oiJ is moving and degrading.

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered tar balls,
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
mmed
3%
as of July 15}j~ee1l3r$lnli0~:;b~~1~of oil had been released fromthe Deepw~ter Horiz0n/I3P
~d~~J~~~:rn.;aI,l,p~lj;P~e:4.,~.rt.~w<~'r{fitJ:~W;Ji~~,p:~ttifW."~~~4'P~'"~~'ajlJ~~~'~~the,p~~~ntages,fu
As shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
collected just over o/()% percent of the oil.
008471
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and ~% percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,QOO'ba,f1:els of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellheadhave removed roughly 114 of the
oil. Around ~:q-uatte.r of the total has been naturally evaporated and IitiQtherq~ dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, !ougQly:1I4 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the
impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and
continued monitoring and research.
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from Jijly{26, for detailed
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not
possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily
operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
on additional information and further analysis.
008472
Science Team
The following scientists at USGS were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
The Following Scientists created and reviewed the calculation methods used the oil budget calculator:
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env Canada(ret)
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
Michel Boufadel, Temple U.
008473
DRAFT 7.29

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
mmed
3%
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) , assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 between;3-5niiHionhiiifijrs of oil had beenreleased from the DeepwaterHorizonlBP
wel1head~ (~Wheitao'Uric~d;~hew:l~jTG~~~~~~at~i'lftq@e~<t~pe Will
and the perceIitages'in
th~ ;oitb(I;g~t:)
aajusttlUs
008474
It is estimated that ~% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturaUy into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50;OO:Q.1)at:r~ls of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhe~d have retn0ved roughly 114 of the
oil. Around aquanet of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, rougwY1l4 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 2.6,2010 for detailed.
008475
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
on additional infonnation and further analysis.
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
MarkSogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
Federal Scientists
Bi11 Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Antonio PossoIo, NIST
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
008476
DRAFT 7.29
Calculator to determine where the oil has gone. The nmnbers are based on best estimates of how much

"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered tar b~~lIs,
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
ed
Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oiL
as of July 15b~tweeti,<j-Sri1illiQn~hairefsof oil had been released from the Deep",ater Horiz0n/BP
;t~~t~td~~reri;ariiioill1c.ed~:~1l~~itR1'6:~QW:t~te':Wt~'ja)sg~pe'~1"aajust"tllls~'iuia}1e.pe.rcentage$'.'in
significant portion of the spilled oiL %0/0 percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
008477
It is estimated that %?61 percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,OOO.bah'els of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 114 of the
oiL Around a:qu.arter of the total has been naturally evaporated and !ll1otherquarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, roughly 1/4 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
NOAA continues to track the movement ofthe remaining oil and will issue daily surface oil trajectories
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July":26,2010 for detailed
008478
infonnation and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
on additional infonnation and further analysis.
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
008479
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator:

Where did the oil go?
The National Incident CommandilliQ has assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
independent scientific community to produce an estimate ofjust how much oil has been skimmed,

"'Remaining oil is
Wlhttf at the stJrftlce
as IIgh( sheen or
weathered tar balls,
hasbeeo
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore,
3%
.. comlncint[SEH~]~ ReadiorsjeridlO.rtad charts

/cloo~"'.tW1n (he!ojl; 'Pi. ollaftn~fio fullow
-. F(gureri~.Q!L$.~~g~L<1I&~!!t~!9i.=.h()~~.~K~;ij~.~aER~~~~.t~iIle.~ir._ .. __ .__ ._ ...... __ 'h.//-<>rvj~~~~~~:

the.hart
_eYI!i>Onition.Co~derchanging
10
:.:r'leid'oriovi'e t1fi>te.<t.1 reconimend the:

.,
.
. R$ommend thai~u Odd 'WhiskerS' to the chait to
'delineate between tile Operations and the adj=1 .
"Iices oftbe pie, .
"
as of July IS,. between 35 million barrel~ of ~il had been released fromthe Deepwat~r HorizonIBP
wellhead. rrne'currenfflow ratecstiina.tesa.reJ5,OOOto60000batrelsOf oil' .ei:' .; The era hie above
is based.on thehibestimate of60 OOO'OOnels of 011 .erdav ___ .. h_ ......... ____ ......... ___ ... ___ ._ ............. .
As shown in the pie chart (Figure I), ~sNI! ispOnse!~ff9!.f:~.~!.l.x~_!J.I?~!!.~~~.~~~f~!.i.').~9.x~~!!l.Ka... __ .. __
significant portion of the spilled oil. The total oil managed by response operations is 32% of the total
oil. This includes Ie fle!'6eAt eftRe oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe .'
insertion tube and ~Top Hat systems (16%). IA adElitiea, burnin~. skimming.. ~:~~lffi~as!
eelleeted ElPflFe)ljffiatel,.I*]~f!~.~~I:!t:l! .~H~.~!~!!.and chemical1x disllersed (8%} ..... h.h.m __ .. h...... m::~:::~
h.
comment(SEH31rThe.P\ec~ 0amI0!:111ustti.te
...'.ggreSsi~'N
. - '.' 'Uo~""tirl'"
.. " . , ' .. if.yj'!uwant
asbeen.: to'
.
~
v;.
.\
Like sugar, oil has the ability to dissolve in water. It is estimated that 25 percent of the oil volume
quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The volatile components of oil evaporate, while
the components that are not volatile dissolve into the water column or form residues such as tar balls.
\\~WI:.;;lfi;;;.f;;;';;';F;;;';;''';''''''''''__________~
008480
The residual is included in the total of remaining oil. The evaporation rate estimate is based on
scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A
~Different evaporation ~rates are used for fresh.Qll and weathered oil to provide the most
accurate number.
-Ui-Based on estimates, 16 percent ofthe oil has dispersed physically into the water column, and 8
percent of the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants.
Physical dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
water column, which caused some afiroil to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns the
diameter of a human hair).
Some portion of the dispersed oil ~is in droplets smaller than 100 microns remained below the
surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed oil between 3300 and
4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2,
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).
!We;'ktio
oil. is
that naturallx_<?~W!t~&_~~!~~!~_hi!:.':~_~R!J.S.l:I,I!!~~_~(t!>j~~:niino~t~~~":;.i.~e~an<I'Uoyido
' <.l?Wll ~e dispers~ aild weather~surfaceo
yabl1!1dariHhtbeG;ulf
,,', "
:e~:i::a!no!f::t!sartth~~o~:~'::ro':~!:~~:e~v~::~~;r;:I~~~~~j_;:~:;=~!~f~ _..=~:~d~Ptevj9~ah~~j;~)ttij~'"
...
to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that thepigtit
"-~[SEH,n:Tlli.In~r...a;lilotbutit;is
notCllS)':W""",,\!':itt)liS1n:tiOwwoknOWtbe ,';
CI'lIde, ~.i-'. fr~~. ~j~_ !":~H .i_~ .~!~_~~~~_~!!l.S.gl:!!~~!y: _.. _............ ___ ....... _...... _.. __ ..... ____ . _. _.... _.. _.. _........ _"~:='vodonetlieirWorl<.NeedtilCtmriect,the
".
After acco~nting for pperatio~, phvsical djspersioTl and,eyap<?r!iti.oTl , Iln, estimated~ru~~<:~n! ,of th~
oil remainS!: __Thi~.()iI. j~_~.i~ht;:r.~,Uh_~s1,l.!f~<:.~_!!S.light.sh~Il.or. Ylt:atherecltarbl:1lls, has ~et:n b.io~egr~c1e~,. ,
or has already come ashore on beaches.
' "" ",
In summary, ~urhing, sk!mlIl ing.chemical dispersion ancl,dire<:t re<:oyery .f~orn. the. wellhe.ad have,
removed roughly one-third~ of the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally
evaporated and 16% has been phvsicallvjust less IhaA eRe quarter dispersed into Gulf waters. The
remaining amount,just over one quarter is on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already removed
from the shore or has been biodegraded.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil. It will issue daily surface oil trajectories
for as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the concentration and distribution
of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop monitoring strategies
for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping ofthe BP wellhead, federal
continued monitoring and research over many breeding seasons of the species atTected.
Nate ell ilegFee efeellfiilenee in eftleullltieftsDirect measures versus best estimates: The Oil Budget
calculations are based on direct measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates
where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured
)O""'-....;..-..,....~-----'---...--i
Comment [Sm8]fFirnt mention of 'light crude',

l'd ,delete ibis for thi.,produot linl... you introduce
the term earlier.
'
'
Coniment[SEH9]: Again diff"", from
description In:the figure,
'
eommentISEH10]: You oan only, imow ibis if

we know tit. total volume r.I~.
Comnient [SEH11]: Again. need consistency
with the pi. chart. '
"
,
008481
directly and reported in daily operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based on previous
scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers
will continue to be refined based on additional information and further analysis.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010, contains
detai led explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
008482

Authors

~Stephen Hammond, USGS, DOl
Credits
David Mack (USGS) Lead application developer
Jeff Allen (USGS) Interface designer
Bill Lehr (NOAA) Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffman (USCG) - Application requirements
Kevin Gallagher and Martha Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
The Following Scientists created and reviewed the calculation methods used in the oil budget calculator:
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Antonio Posso\o, NIST
AI Allan, SpilTec
Torn Coolbaugh, Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env. Canada(ret}
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
008483
DRAFT 7.31v 11pm

The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled some of the best scientific minds in the government
and independent scientific community to produce an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed,
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator to
detennine where the oil went. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released
and how this oil is moving and degrading.
F,~,l

*Remaining oil is either at
the urface as light sheen
or weathered tar balls,
has been biodegraded, or
has already come ashore.
Response
Operations
I"
!
Burned
5%
3%
8%
'-----_____J
over the course' of the spill. This number is based on flow rate estimates from The Flow Rate Technical
Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command. The most recent estimate of the Flow
Rate Technical Group is that approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater
HorizonIBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow Rate Teclmical Group,
website or report?). They estimate that the daily flow rate ranged from 62,000 barrels per day on April
22, 2010 to 53,000 barrels per day on July 15, 2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. To
represent the ten percent uncertainty in the flow rate estimate, the Oil Budget Calculator shows two
scenarios, one based on the estimated flow rate plus ten percent, referred to at the "higher flow"
estimate, and one on the estimated flow rate minus ten percent, referred to as the "lower flow" estimate.
The pie chart above is based on the higher flow estimate.
008484
Direct Measures ands Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The
The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were
based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refmed based on additional information and further
analysis.
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with oil have been aggressive. As shown in the pie
chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oil. This includes
oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems
(16%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning and
skimming remove the oil from the water entirely, while chemically dispersed oil remains in the water
column until it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the
diameter of a human hair). Chemical dispersion also deliberately breaks the oil up into smaller droplets
which keeps it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and makes it more readily available for
biodegradation.
Much of the dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of
diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
to be in the process of natural biodegradation.
Evaporation: It is estimated that 25 % of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
column. The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volatile dissolve
into the water column or form residues such as tar balls. The residual is included in the category of
remaining oil discussed below. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research and
Remaining: After accounting for recovery operations, chemical and natural dispersion and evaporation,
an estimated 27 % remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has
biodegraded or already come ashore.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and surface oil are naturally biodegraded. Naturally
occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the oil. Bacteria that break
down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part
because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the
Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the
008485
exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly.
Conclusion: In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly
one quarter of the oil. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulfwaters. The remaining amount,
just over one quarter is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already removed from the shore
or has been biodegraded.
for as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the concentration,distribution and
impact of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop monitoring
strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 2010, contains
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. Both images in the attachment combine the three
categories of chemically dispersed, naturally dispersed, and evaporated or dissolved, into one colored
segment. The image on page one of Appendix A uses the higher flow rate estimate, which is the same
as the pie chart used above. The image on page three uses the lower flow rate estimate.
008486

Authors
Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) - Interface designer
Kevin Gallagher and Martha Garcia (USGS) Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env. Canada(ret)
Ali Khelifa, Bnv. Canada
Per Dating, SINTEF
008487
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budgetl

The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a-number of intera gene v stellar scientific team.li!Q
estimate the Quantity of BP DeepwaTer Horizon oil thaI has been released and the fate o1'lhal oil. The
expertise of government scientists on these teams is complemented bv non-governmental scientists
reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One team calculated the flow rate and total oil released..
Led bv United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt. and Energy SecretarY Steven
Cilu. this team announced on August 2. 20 I0 that it estimates that 4.9m barrels of oil have been released.
A second interagency team. led by Dr. McNutt. eaR'lj'lasea afge\'effimeRt ana iflaejgeflaeflt seiefltists r:e
pFeduee aRa re'/iew an estimate afksw mt.!efl ail kas been skiR'lA'!ed; Inlffied. f:JaAmiRea, 6'1aj'leratea aHa
aisflersed B'eA'! tke BP Deefl'watefHafiZ:efl ail S13i1l. They _developed a tool, called the Oil Budget
Calculator, to determine what happened to th~e oil. The interagency scientific report below builds on
the efforts of both teams. draws upon both direct measurements and the best scientific estimates
available to date. and describes what has happened to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil.. Tko; fll:lR'laeFS if}
tile ealeula!:or are eased en best estiR'lates ofH(w'/ITUIOR ail was released and how tRis ail is R'l8viRg aHa
degrsaiRg. Tile fig\:lre \:Ised for release oil, 4.9 l'flilliel'l barrels, is iRe R'lost reseRt estiR'late aHl19lltleea 01'1
Al:lgt.!St 2, 2010 i'ly the Hatiaflsl Jl'leident CaR'lR'land's Flaw Rate TeeRAiee! GretlJ3 (FRTG), led ay
United States Geologies! St.!fOY (USGS) Direetor Msrcia McN\:!It, al'ld a teaA'! of DeflaRA'!eAt efERel'g5'
(DOg) scioRtists aREi engineers, lea by eflorg)' SeofetO:f)' StO\'OA Cku.
In summSf\'. Based on tkeso At.!lTlaefS, it is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from
the wellhead removed one quarter of oil released from the wellhead: One quarter of the total oil
naturally evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter was dispersed (either naturally or as a
result of operations) as microscopic5fAfll.l. droplets into the Gulf waters. The residual amount, just over
one quarter, is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore
or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. The report below describes each of
these cate!!ories and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional int()mliltion
becomes available.
008488
cCOri1trientJjl]:F"'m~~idiuul<ll<i: dOl....
Deepwater Horizon on Budget
: /som.~mlm'thi!d.ftom tliOlilstliile.
Based on estimated release ot 4.9 M barrels of oil

'Residual oil includes
oil that is on or just
below t,e surface as
residue aod weathered
ldlb~I"
has
Federal
Response
Operations
""",hed
a:ih(;r~ or h~n
collected from the

~hO'D, Qr
some Is
burleo ir sand .nd
sediment>.
_'' 'IIIIl1'' '\I

/
Figure I: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As shown in the
pie chart (Figure I), response efforts were successful in dealing with 33% of the spilled oil. This
systems (17%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning
and skimming remove the oil from the water entirely. while chemically dispersed oil remains in the
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out ofthe broken riser pipe at high speed into the
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this
analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a
human hair. Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water column
where they then begin to biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to
keep it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and make it more readily available for biodegradation.
Chemical dispersants were applied at the surface and below the surface, therefore the chemically
dispersed oil ended up both in the water column and at the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood
furthat the oil will te--be biodegraded. both in the water column and atthe surface. Until it is
'
008489
All ofthe naturally dispersed oil and someiffiiffi of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well
below the surface in diffuse clouds, where it began to dissipatefffise further and biodegrade. Previous
analyses have shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in ~Iow
concentrations (parts per million OJ' less), moving in the direction of known ocean currents and
decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2,
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
remained at or close to the surface and began to biodegrade there.
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly and naturally
evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based
on scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. Different
evaporation rates are used for fresh oil and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
Dissolution iR tAc water ealuffiR is dit1erentstiflet from dispersion. Dis)3efSea ail is sfAall aFs)3lcts sf oil.
wJ:I.i.Ie.tIQissolution isaes6riaes the process by which seme-individual hydrocarbon molecules from the
oil separate and dissolve into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water. Dispersion is the process
bv which larger volumes of oil are broken down in Lo smaller droplets of oil.
Residual: After accounting for the categories that can be measured dir'cctly or estimated, i.c .. recovery
operations, dispersion, evaporation and dissolution, an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a
combination of categories that are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just below
the surface in the form of light sheen or tarballs, oil that has washed ashore or been collected from the
shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oil has also
begun to degrade through a number of natural processes.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water RfffiIfaI.Ir
biodegrade naturally. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of
biodegradation in the Gulf, early observations and preliminary research results from a number of
scientists show that the oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spilhAis ssuree is biodegrading quickly.
Scientists from NOAA, EPA,-fIRi DOE, and academic scientists -are working to calculate a-more precise
estimate~ of this rate. It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered
surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water4eFe, the
favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural
seeps regularly.
Explanation or Methods and Assumptions

over the course of the spill. The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead qetween April 22, 2010 and July 15,
20 10, at which time the flow of oIl was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is I 0% (cite:
Flow Rate TechnicaI'Group, websikorreport). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
4.9 million barrels of oil.
008490
The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily operational
expertise. Further information on these methods is available in Appendix A. These numbers will
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA has carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in the Gulfand
crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSFfunded academic researchers and NOAA scient ists are ftff-Jnvestigating rates of biodegradation,
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. 001 and DOE responders are working to ensure control of the well and,
to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. 001 is leadinll:
""'"".",.-,u,~ to mitigate impacts of oil to telTestrial wildlife, natural resources, and public lands.
Scientists from DOE laboratories are working to ensure the accurate measurement of oil released froni
the well and are investigating the rates of biodegradation of sub-surface oil.
Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems bas decreased since the capping
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Guifincident Budget Tool Report from luly30, 2010, contains
repr~senting the same numbers as the pie chart above. ,These cylindrical images coinbine the thl'ee
cat!:lgori~"of;cti8nicillly(ti~Pei"$ed"naturall'ydisperse~,and eVilPotated'ordiSseMl:I;',fntoone:celored
008491
segmellt; . Theimage.QnpageoneofApixmdixA.uSestheCUIIltJ1ativer~le~e~stimateof.4.9.Mbarrels.
which.Is thesameasthepie~hart used above; The.ihreeill1agesrepresentthe actull.lesdmate.as wcHas
the upper imd lower bOl.IDd ofthcfJ 0 % uncettaintyoffueestimate.
008492
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget.:.

Authors

MW'cia McNutt, USGS, 001
MW'k Sogge, USGS, 001
MW'k Miller, NOAA, DOC
Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) -Interface designer
Kevin Gallagher, Stephen Hammond and Mmha GW'cia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr. NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Ali Khelifa. Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
008493
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:

What Happened To the Oil?
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a number of interagency expert scientific teams to
estimate the quantity of BP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of
that oil. The expertise of government scientists serving on these teams is complemented by
nongovernmental and governmental specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One team
calculated the flow rate and total oil released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this team announced on August 2, 2010, that it
estimates that a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil has been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well.
A second interagency team, led by the Department of the Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a tool called the Oil Budget Calculator to determine
what happened to the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input and uses both
direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date, to determine what has happened
to the oil. The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the
disposition of the oil to date.
In summary, it is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one
quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) ofthe total oil naturally
evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The residual amount -just over one
quarter (26%) - is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed
ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Oil in the residual and
dispersed categories is in the process of being degraded. The report below describes each of these
categories and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information
becomes available.

Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oil
Residual includes oil

that is on or just below
the surface as light
sheen and weathered
tar bails, has washed
ashore or been
collected from the
shore, Qr is buried in
sand and sediments.
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
categorie~JJi5'
"'Oil in these 3
currently being degraded
naturally.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what happened to the oil.
008494
Unified Command Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As
shown in the pie chart (Figure I), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oil.
This includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat
dispersed by the application of chemical dispersants on and below the surface. Natural dispersion occurs
as a result of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused some
of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as
droplets that are less than 100 microns about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this
small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to biodegrade.
Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from coming ashore in large
surface slicks and makes it more readily available for biodegradation. Chemical dispersants were applied
at the surface and below the surface; therefore, the chemically dispersed oil ended up both deep in the
water column and just below the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be
biodegraded, both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded, naturally or chemically
dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oil and some of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well-below
the surface in diffuse clouds where it began to dissipate further and biodegrade. Previous analyses have
shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3,300 and 4,300 feet in very low
concentrations (parts per million or less), moving in the direction of known ocean currents and
decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
h!J:p:llecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
moved into the top 20 feet of the water column where it mixed with surrounding waters and began to
biodegrade.
evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based on
scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Dissolution is different from dispersion. Dissolution is the process by which individual hydrocarbon
molecules from the oil separate and dissolve into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water.
Dispersion is the process by which larger volumes of oil are broken down into smaller droplets of oil.
Residual: After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated (i.e., recovery
operations, dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution), an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a
combination of categories all of which are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just
below the surface in the form of light sheen or tar balls, oil that has washed ashore or been collected
from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oil
has also begun to degrade through natural processes.
008495
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
naturally. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE and
academia are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate. It is well known that bacteria that
break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part
because ofthe warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil regularly
enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps.
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) led by United States Geological
barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between April 22 and July 15,2010, at
which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty of this estimate is 10%. The pie chart
above is based on this group's estimate of 4.9 million barrels of oil.
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional information and further
analysis. Further information on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,2010 (available online). The tool was created by the US
Our knowledge ofthe oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurfac~ scanning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in
the Gulf and continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAAand NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. DOl and DOE responders are working to ensure control of the well and
008496
accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. DOl is leading efforts to
mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife, natural resources, and public lands.
008497
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget:

What happened to the oil?
Acknowledgements
Authors
Bill Lehr, NOAA, DOC
Credits
LTGg) Charity Drew (USCG) Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) - Application development and engineering
Rebecca Uribe (USGS) - Graphic design
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffman, CDR Sean O'Brien, and LT Amy McElroy
(USCG) Application requirements and user stories
Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond (USGS) - Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
008498
DRAFT 8.3v llam

What Hs-happened to the oil?
estimate the quantity ofBP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of
that oil. The expertise of government scientists on these teams is complemented by non-governmental
and governmental specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One team calculated the flow
rate and total oil released. Led by United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt,
and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, this team announced on August 2, 20 10 that it estimates that a total of
4.9m barrels of oil h~e been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well. A second interagency
team, led by DOl and NOAA developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what
happened to the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9m barrel estimate as its input and uses both direct
measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date, to determine what has happened to the
oil. The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the disposition
of the oil to date.seseribell the elll;f3l:l~s efthe nil bl:lsget ealetllator.
quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The residual amount, just over one
quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as Iight sheen~ and weathered tarballs, has
washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments", or has degrdded. Oil
in the residual and dispersed categories is in the process of being dClmlded. The report below describes
each of these categories and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as,additional
information becomes available.
008499
008500
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaagov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface

biodegrade.
Evaporalion and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly and naturally
on scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Residual: After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated, i.e., recovery
operations, dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution, an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a
combination of categories all of which~ are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or
just below the surface in the form oflight sheen or tarballs, oil that has washed ashore or been collected
from the shore, and some that is buried in sand aild sediments and may resurface through time. This oil
has also begun to degrade through a flumBer a1' natural processes.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface ofthe water biodegrade
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOM, EPA, DOE, and
academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate. It is well known that
bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in
large part because ofthe warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Explanation of Metbods and Assumptions
Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate ofthe cumulative amount of oil released
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG). led by United States Geological
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July IS,
2010, at which tilne .the flo"" ofoil was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite:
FI~wR'aie:'f~nn:i~Gf91iP',,~bsite:ojH:'e,porO, The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
008501
Our knowledge ofthe oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
www.geopiatform.gov.
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored BP'g use of dispersant in
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. DOl and DOE responders are working to ensure control ofthe well and
to eRsure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. DOl is leading
efforts to mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife, natural resources, and public lands. Scientbts
f!'Om DOE laboratories are ,>,,'orldng to 6RSI:II'e the aest1rate meElSHremeRt efoil releosed from the well
aAd are iRv6stigating the Fates ofkioaegraaatiofl of sub sHFtaee oil.
Attacbments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,2010, contains
representing the same information innuFl'lbers as the pie chart above. These cylindrical images combine
the three categories of chemically dispersed, naturally dispersed, and evaporated or dissolved, into one
colored segment. The cylindrical image on page one of Appendix A uses the cumulative release
estimate of 4.9 M barrels, which is the same as the pie chart used above. The cylindrical chart on pages
3 and 5 of the report are based on the Higher Flow Estimate and Lower Flow Estimate representing the
upper and lower bound ofthe 10% uncertainty on the 4.9 M barrel cumulative release estimate.
008502

What has happeued to the oil?
Authors
Credits
LTOg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST) Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
(USCG) - Application requirements and user stories
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pat Lambert, Env.Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
008503
FINAL DRAFT

and governmental specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One team calculated the flow
rate and total oil released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this team announced on August 2, 2010 that it estimates that a total of
4.9 million barrels of oil has been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well. A second interagency
team, led by the Department of Interior (001) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what happenedto the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input and uses both direct
measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date, to determine what has happened to the
oil. The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the disposition
of the oil to date.
quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The residual amount, just over one
quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tarballs, has washed
ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Oil in the residual and
dispersed categories is in the process of being degraded. The report below describes each of these
categories and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information
becomes available.

Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oil
Residual includes Qil
the surface as light
sheen and weathered
tarballs, has washed
ashore or been
collected from the
shore or is buried in
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
sand and sediments.
*Oil in these 3 categories is

currently being degraded
naturally.
008504
shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oil.
dispersed by the application of chemical dispersants on and below the surface. Natural dispersion
occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which
caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is
defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that
are this small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to
ended up both deep in the water column and just below the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood
that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded,
naturally or chemically dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oil and some of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse clouds, where it began to dissipate further and biodegrade. Previous analyses
have shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in very low
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.htrnl). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
combination of categories all of which are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just
below the surface in the form of light sheen or tarballs, oil that has washed ashore or been collected from
the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oil has
also begun to degrade through natural processes.
008505
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and
large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil

over the course of the spilL The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July 15,
2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite:
Flow RateTechlllcaiGroup,w~bsite(jr report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
analysis. Further information on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,2010. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in

dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA
008506
and NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. DOl is leading efforts to
mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife, natural resources, and public lands.
008507

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
LT(jg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
Rebecca Uribe (USGS) Graphic design
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio PossoIo, NIST
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
Michel BoufadeI, Temple Univ.
008508
DRAFT 8.3v 11:30am

estimate the quantity ofBP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of
that oil. The expertise of government scientists on these teams is complemented by nongovernmental
specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One team calculated the flow rate and total oil
released. Led by Ener!!:V Secretarv Steven Chu and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director
Marcia McNutt, BRa Bflel'g)' geefe~B:l)' SteveR Glul, this team announced on August 2,2010 that it
estimates that a total of 4.9.million barrels of oil have been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon
well. A second interagency team, led by the Department of Interior COOl} and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administl'ation (NOAA), developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine
what happened to the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9.million barrel estimate as its input and uses both
direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date, to determine what has happened
to the oil. The interagency scientific report below describes the outputs of the oil budget calculator.
quarter of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or
dissolved, and just less than one quarter was dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as
microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount, just over one quarter, includes oil that ha~
washed ashore 01' been collected from the shore OJ' is just below the surface as residue and weathered
tarhalls. is either OR arju9t bela\\' the surfaee as residue sRd weathered tarballs. has washed ashore OF
BeeR eolleeted from the "Rore, is Buried iR seRd aAd sediments, OF hils degraded. The report below
describes each ofthese categories and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as
additional information becomes available.
008509
COminenf[zl]: Residual-includesoil that has

:1 washed ashore or been colJected tTom the shore Dr is
just below the surfac.......idu. and weathered
tarballs.
.
:1
Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of au
Unified
Command
the surf"ace CJ~ rE!~idue

and weathered tarballs.
Response
Operations
Resid"al includes oil
has washed ashorE" or

been collected from the
sand and sediments.
8%
*These 3 percpntage"i represent

oil initially in lhe!loe ca':egories Lhal
is now d~grading.
------Figu~el:o;jBuiig~t~-sliows-c~~tt;est-~stirri'~te~-;;rwh~iha;h~pp~~dio th~-oii-'-"-----""
-...
shown in the pie chart (Figure I), response efforts were successful in dealing ,.... itfladdressing 33% of the
spilled oil. This includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube
and top hat systems (17%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct
capture, burning and skimming remove the oil from the water entirely, while chemically dispersed oil
remains in the water until it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
dispersed by the application of Rearl)' 5Q.QQQ l3arrels efchemical dispersants on and below the surface.
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water
column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis,
'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a human hair.
Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they
then begin to biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from
coming ashore in large surface slicks and make it more readily available for biodegradation. Chemical
008510
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaagovIJAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface

biodegrade.
Dispersion is the process by which larger vol urnes of oil are broken down into smaller droplets of oil.
enters the GulfofMexico through natural seeps regularly.
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July 15,
2010, at ",hich time thetlow ofoil ",as susl'ended. The uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite:
Flow;Ratett:Chn1calGl:otjp,~~1?Sitem:;r<::p(Jrt); The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
reports. The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest ofthe numbers
008511
expertise. Further infonnation on these methods is available in Appendix A. These numbers will
continue to be refined based on additional infonnation and further analysis.
activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates and infonnation can be found at
. www.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
www.geoplatfonn.gov.
001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts ofremaining surface oil. NOAA
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. 001 and DOE responders are working to ensure control of the well and
to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. 001 is leading
efforts to mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife, natural resources, and public lands. Scientists
from DOE laboratories are working to ensure the accurate measurement of oil released from the well
and are investigating the rates of biodegradation ofsub-surface oil.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug I, 20 10, contains
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. These cylindrical images combine the three
segment. The cylindrical image on page one of Appendix A uses the cumulative release estimate of4.9
M barrels, which is the same as the pie chart used above. The cylindrical chart on pages 3 and 5 of the
report are based on the Higher Flow Estimate and Lower Flow Estimate representing the upper and
lower bound of the 10% uncertainty on the 4.9 M barrel cumulative release estimate.
008512

Authors
Credits
LT(jg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) Application development and engineering
-Rebecca Uribe (USGS) - Graphic design
program
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) Project vision and management
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
008513
DRAFT 8.1v7pm
determine where the oil went. The numbers in the calculator are based on best estimates of how much
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget.

Based on higher flow rate estimate
"'I:ederal
Rrmilininij 011 I,
either ~t the surace

as ligil: shen or
Vlt:'"II'eleu lar biJlb,
Burned
5%
h<lsiJli!f!n
biocegraclecl, or has
alreadv come ashore.
3%
Chemjc~lly
DI~p",r~ed
.I
7'*
L............ ____ .... _...._. __..~._........_ ............. _ .. _.._ ... __ ~_. _____ ......._ ........._...__...____......____................................._ .. ______________......_....... __ ...1
Figure I: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
over the course of the spill. This number is based on flow rate estimates from the Flow Rate Technical
HorizonIBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is:t 10% (cite:.Flow Rate Technical Group,
website or report). The FRTG estimates that the daily flow rate ranged from 62,000 barrels per day on
April 22, 2010 to 53,000 barre.ls per dayon July 15,2010, at which time the flow of oilwassuspended.
[fo represent the ten percent uncertainty in .thetl()wratee~timate.the()H BudgetClliculatOrshows two
scenmios,one based ontheestimateQflowratepluswnJll'r~t, referred.toatthe"highedlow"
estimate; and one on the estijll~tedflowrateminus .tenpereent;te;ferredto as the "lower f1ow~~ estimate.
The pie chart aboveisbasedonthelugher .flowestimatei.
COmineritOl]\.USGSteam hop.. to tW,o.the

... actualSOvemJ1'llllltCSlim""" (wilhoutthe
urice!lai~ly}~.by COB tomorrow (thati,
/MDIl:'ThilyPllUllohave ....pM ~thethas all
.'
11:11'." "'!>n':';b. ciu;tualcstimates.+lO";',~ -10"1. .
Then1iurPieChaI'i eould b,rupdiled ttishowth .
4.9Mbai-zliI""",,""o.
..'
'..
,:
008514
analysis.
chart (Figure I), response efforts were successful in dealing with 30% of the spilled oil. This includes
(15%). burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (7%). Direct capture, burning and
Natural dispersion occurs as a result ofthe oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
diameter of a human hair). Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into smaller droplets which keeps
it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and makes it more readily available for biodegradation.
However, until it is degraded, dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species in
the water column.
Report I and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAGlreports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
to be in the process of natural biodegradation.
Evaporation: It is estimated that 26% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
column. The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volati Ie dissolve
After accounting for recovery operations, chemical and natural dispersion and evaporation, an estimated
28% remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded
or already come ashore. Gfthe oil that has washed ashore, some has been removed by clean-up teams,
some remains on beaches and marshes, and some is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface
through time.
008515
occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the oil. Bacteria that break
down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because
of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of
Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be done to quantity the exact
rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly.
one quarter of the 4.9 mbarrelsof oil. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved
and less than one quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulfwaters. The
remaining amount,just over one quarter is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already
removed from the shore or has been biodegraded.
Continued monitoring and research: Our knowledge of the oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and
human impacts will continue to evolve. Federal agencies and many academic and independent scientists
are actively pursuing better understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal
government will contin)le to report activities, results and data to the public as soon as possible.
(www.restorethegulf.gov).
NOAA continues to track the movement of the oil still on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurface scanning and saJllJllin~ to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oil there. POI, NASA
NOAA.c"piitii.iti" t9:.i:enne understaildingof
amoUnts 'Ofremaining s~,oii. .NOAA responders arew9Hcifig 'with the Unified Command to
develop monitoring strategies for tarballs and near shore subrtlerged(dhEPAcolltinuesto mo~itor
coaStal airartlilw;uer',withspecial attention to hUman health:!l'IipaCt8.;'NUm~rous:NOAA" and NSFfunded academic rescarcherSare invei;tigittingrates ofbionegradiifion, eeosystemand wildlife impacts.
IDOImonitoring and n::search6nwildlife?i
and
. . . . . . .' m . . . ' . m . . . . . . . '
.............................................
in the Gulfregion will take time and continued monitoring and research.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Guifincident Budget Tool Report from July 30. 2010. contains
collaboration with US Coast Guard. NOAA, and NIST.
.
,_
Comllll!llt[j2]j Awaiting i~ Ilomo1her
agoncies to round 0111 this pamsraph.
008516
008517
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget:

Wbere did tbe oil go?
Authors

Credits
fonnulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
008518
DRAFT 8. Iv 7pm
determine where the oil went. The numbers in the calculator are based on best estimates of how much

Based on hIgher flow rate estimate
.,Rr:m~ining
Federal
011 Is
either at the sur;ace

as Ii gl1, sheen or
Burned
w,,,,.II'e ..,,r.Ildr ball"
5%
biocegraded. or has
alreadv tome ashore.
Dbp~r~"tl
7%
Ii
~t
" _ . ___ n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
____
'".,,~~_,,
___
_ , , _ . _ _ _ "' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_._.~.
___
___
~_.
_ _
~,~ .~""~
__
"".w.~.~!
. 'Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
Rate Technical Group is that approximately 4.9 mHlion barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater
HorizonIBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow Rate Technical Group,
website or report). The FRTG estimates that the daily flow rate ranged from 62,000 barrels per day on
April 22, 2010 to 53,OOObarrelsperdayon July IS, 201O,atwhich time the flow ofail was suspended.
~~~:f~~~h;~~~~\r~~~~~~fl~#.~:~W;~~~~!U~:~<r~:::?~::?;Vvi.~O
estlril:ate;:$ilQne Qnthe:estirna,fea<flQwriite~l1I.iii\is .tex);percrit;reerred to as 'the ."low.erf1oW> estil1late.

The'pie.haiicabpve'isob'aSed .on.themgb.er11o:Westi~~te~
,COmmentU1]i.usGs b!ain;hop.,ainbiiw the

: ..IUl!lBOm;,."en1 estimates (wi_.!he .. '
iuncor1Binly) i>JograinDJod.byC0B 1limolroW(!het is
MDn.The)tplllri to have a repoitfurirult tltat bas ell
th'"'l5cen,,"as -aotual osrimaleo. '" IQ%, aiid -10% .

.'Then our.Pi. Chart Could be updated.1n show the
4.9M baml scenario.
008519
Direct MeasW'es and Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
analysis.
chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 30% ofthe spilled oil. This includes
(15%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (7%). Direct capture, burning and
Disper.sion: Based on estimates, 16% of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 7% was
diameter of a human hair). Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into smaller droplets which keeps
it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and makes it more readily available for biodegradation.
However, until it is degraded, dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species in
the water column.
Report I and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaagov/JAG/reports.html). Dispersion increases the likelyhood
for the oil to be naturally dissolved and biodegraded As aes6fiaea aelow, this oil appears to ae if! tHe
j3Feeess sf FUHllral bioeegraeatioH.
Evaporation: It is estimated that 26% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
After accounting for recovery operations, chemical and natural dispersion and evaporation, an estimated
28% remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded
or already come ashore. Of the oil that has washed ashore, some has been removed by clean-up teams.
some remains on beaclJes and marshes, and some is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface
through time.
008520
occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount ofthe oil. Bacteria that break
down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because
of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulfof
Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be done to quantifY the exact
rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly.
one quarter of the 4:9 rri barnfls'of oil. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved
and less than one quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulfwaters. The
remaining amount, just over one quarter is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already
government will continue to report activities, results and data to the public as soon as possible.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the oil still on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there. DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of
amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to
develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil. EPA continues to monitor
coastal air and water, with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSFfunded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts.
DOl responders are working to ensure control of the well: to ensure accurate measurement of oil
released and oil remaining in the environment; and to mitigate impacts of oil to wildlife. natural
resources, and public lands managed by DOI..~~.i~~.tj~~~_ fr~m DOE }ab~ratories are workingt() ~nsuremn __ ""'{
the accurate measurement of oil released from the well and are investigati ng the rates of biodegradation
of sub-surface oil. (DOl R'l8RiteFiRg and resear6R eR .... ildlife?)
Gulfecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 2010, contains
detailed explanation of calculation methods, The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
Fonnatted: Font: TImes New Roman
008521
DISPERSION
The oil and gas flow from the pipe at high pressure and velocity. The impact of th eoil and the
water tears the oil into small droplets. The bigger droplets float to the surface. forming the
visible surface slick. but for droplets less than 100 microns in diameter (thickness of human
hair), the natural mixing in the ocean keeps it mixed in the water just as atmospheric
turbulence keeps small dust particles mixed in the air.
Chemical dispersants enhance this natural process and causes the oil droplet sizes to be
smaller and therefore less likely to float to the surface.
DISSOLUTION
In general, the old saying that oil and water do not mix is true. However. some individual
..
hydrocarbon molecules from the dispersed oil droplets will dissolve into the water just as sugar
can be dissolved in water. This process is called dissolution. For oil spilled on the water
surface, dissolution is usually a minor process as evaporation removes many of the same
molecules that might dissolve (The smaller molecules in the oil are more likely to dissolve).
Because this spill happened a mile below the water surface, there was more time for
dissolution to take place so much more dissolution occurred than in most oil spills.
...
{""F'o..:;nn=atted=:.:..'.::.:le:;..:ft_ _ _ _ _ _ _- '
008522
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget:.............................................................................. _...... ~':~=: ~~t~~~~:~ckLuclda Grande, 12

c=.:.:=-=="---'--"=::.::.:.="---_ _ _-'
Authors
Credits
Federal Sci entists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
008523
DRAFT 8.2v 5pm

burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a
tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine where the oil went. The numbers in the calculator
are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this oil is moving and degrading.
,-----------------------------------0
I!
Dased on higher flow rate estimate

Rrm~ining
011
I~
I
I
either ~t the sur'~ce

as ligh: sheen or
Vlt!dlh~lelilar ""II"
biocegraded. or has
already come ashore.
!
7%
i
i
.........________.._..____.._____ ..___ ._ ...._._._ ... _...__ .........__ .......1
Summary of Findings
Burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly one quarter of the 4.9 m
barrels of oil. Around a quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as small droplets into the Gulfwaters.
The remaining amount, just over one quarter, is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already
pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 30% of the spilled oil. This
008524
water column until it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% ofthe oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 7% was
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray offin small droplets. For the purpose of this
analvsis. 'dispersed oil' is. defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter ofa
human hair. Oil droplets that are this small become neutrallv buovantand remain in the water column
where thev then begin to biodegrade. Chemical iJispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to
keep it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and make it more readily available for biodegradation.
Chemical dispersants were applied at the surface and below the surface, therefore the chemicallv
dispersed oil ended up both in the water column and at the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood
forthe oil to be naturwl~ dissolved and biodewaded both in the water column and at the surface,
!however~untiijtis:bio~eiP:aik~dIUispersedciil;.ev~nlnQili1t~ ~qun~,'OlUl be fuX1~ tOvulnemble
species~ la~~ wateFtleltlmn~ ...............
..... m
........... m
. . . . . . . . . . . on on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
. .......~ __--,~~-_,---,
~~~1!;::: ':::~':::::;BUdget
All of the naturallv dispersed oil and much of the oil that was chemically dispersed ended lIPFeA'lained
below the surface in diffuse clouds. where it began to diffuse and biodegrade. Previous analyses have
shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet. ill low concentrations.
and decreasing with distance fTom the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2,
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).Oil that wa~ chemically dispersed at the surface
remained at the slirtace and began to biodegrade there.
Evaporation and Dissolutiol1: It is estimated that 26% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved
Dissolution in the water column is distinct from dispersion. Dispcrsed oil is smwl droplets of oil. while
dissolution describes the process by which some individual hvdrocarbon molecules tl'om the oil separate
and dissolve imo the water just a~ sugar can be dissolved in iWater.l ........
.....
After accounting for recovery operations, dispersion, evaporation and dissolution, an estimated 28%
remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded or
already come ashore. Of the oil that has washed ashore, some has biodegraded, some has been removed
by clean-up teams, some remains on beaches and marshes, and some is buried in sand and sediments and
may resurface through time.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and surface oil are naturally biodegraded. Naffil'ftlly
OSeHl'fiflg hoo*eria have eeflSl:lfflea 6fla eioaeg\'aaea a sigAifieaRt amoHRt oftha oil. While there is more
analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf. early observations and
preliminarv research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from this source is
biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA and DOE are working to calculate a more precise
estimate of this rate.
.' Corriment [f2]:Stili bess the questiOllas.to - is

thlll roxie? Or Wbat is the impact ofthlll.
008525
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in
the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the wann water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen
levels, and the fact that oil enters the GulfofMexico through natural seeps regularly.
Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command and scientists at the Dept. of Energy.
The most recent estimate of the Flow Rate Technical Group is that approximately 4.9 million barrels of
oil flowed .from the Deepwater HorizonIBP weiIhead. the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite:
Flow Raie'Fechnicid Ofoup; webSite or report). The FRTG estimates that the daily flow rate ranged
from 62,000 barrels per day on April 22, 2010 to 53,000 barrels per day on July 15,2010, at which time
the flow of oil was suspended. The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of 4.9 million
barrels of oil ..
were based on previous scientific analyses, best available infonnation and a broad range of scientific
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional infonnation and further
analysis.
Ongoing Response
government will continue to report activities, results and data to the public as soon as possible.
001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
continues to track the movement ofthe oil still on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA continues to monitor coastal air and water, with special
attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA and NSF-funded academic researchers are
investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts. 001 responders are working to
ensure control of the well; to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the
environment; and to mitigate impacts of oil to wildlife, natural resources, and public lands. Scientists
and are investigating the rates of biodegradation of sub-surface oil.
008526
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 3D, 2010, contains
Appe~dix
B: Acknowledgements
008527
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Bndget

Autbors

wtI+iaffi..C--eRfteFMark Miller, NOAA, DOC
Mark Sagge, USGS, DOl
Credits
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffman (USCG) Application requirements
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and JelT)' McFaul (USGS) - Technical advisors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio Passalo, NIST
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SlNTEF
008528
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a stellar scientific team composed of government and
independent scientists to produce and review an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed, burned,
contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a tool,
called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what happened to the oil. The numbers in the calculator
The figure used for release oil, 4.9 million barrels, is the most recent estimate announced on August 2,
2010 by the National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) , led by United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE)
scientists and engineers, led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
removed one quarter of oil released .from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated
or dissolved and just less than one quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as
small droplets into the Gulf waters. The residual amount, just over one quarter, is either on or just below
the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is
buried in sand and sediments.
Deepwclter Horizon Oil Budget

Based on estimated release of 4.9 M barrels of oil
*Residual oil includes
oil that is on or just
below the surface as
Federal
Response
Operations
residue and weathered

tarballs, has washed
ashore or been
collected from the
shore, or some is
buried in sand and
sediments.
008529
pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 33% of the spilled oil. This
analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns about the diameter of a
biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from corning
ended up both in the water column and at the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood for the oil to
be biodegraded both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded, dispersed oil, even
in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species.
the surface in diffuse clouds, where it began to diffuse and biodegrade. Previous analyses have shown
the direction of known ocean currents ~d decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal
Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was
chemically dispersed at the surface remained at the surface and began to biodegrade there.
Dissolution in the water column is distinct from dispersion. Dispersed oil is small droplets of oil. while
estimate. It includes oil still on or just below the surface in the form of light sheen or tarballs. oil that
has washed ashore or been collected from the shore. and some that is buried in sand and sediments and
008530
biodegrade. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the
dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the
2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is 10% fci~:
F1owRate;*echnicalQroup;website~ nrreport). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
www.geoplatforrn.gov.
DOl. NASA and NOAA continue to refme understanding of amounts of remaining surface oiL NOAA
continues to monitor the air. water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of dispersant and
crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSFfunded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts.
DOl responders are working to ensure control of the well; to ensure accurate measurement of oil
008531
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from ltdy3Q, 2010, contains
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. These cylindrical images combine.the three
categoriesofchetnichllydi~persed;naru.ral~y<di$persed,:,apd'"V~porat~dor.dissolved,' into. one colored
segm~nt... The image on pageol1eor'J:\PJlenli~A'l;{se~.tltecup:ltTlativ~reIea,se~.stimate of4,9 M barrels,
w.hi,ch is the. sam.~asthepie Chatt;qseCLa1JQy:c,.,.,Xhethie.~ip;l~ge:sl'eprej;e,ntthe. :actualestimate,as well as
the.upper andJowerbound of thel ()%uncertaiiityOfthestlinate.
008532
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget

Authors
Credits
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffinan (USCG) Application requirements
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) Project vision and management
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
008533
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horiwn oil spill. They developed a tool,
2010 by the National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States
removed one quarter of oil released from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated
the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is

Based an estjmated release of 4.9 M barrels of oil
'Re~iuual oil include,
oil that is on or JUS!
below t1e SOU rrace as
residue
d:~d
weathered
tarbal's. has ",a,hl'd

a;hore or been
collected from the
~ho'e. or some is
buriec ir: ~and and
~tKIim~n~.
Figure I: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
008534
analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter ofa
human hair. Oil droplets that are this small remain in the water column where they tReH-begin to be
biodegraded hv naturallv occurring bacteria. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small
droplets to keep it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and make it more readily available for
biodegradation. Chemical dispersants were applied at the surface and below the surface, therefore the
chemically dispersed oil ended up both in the water column and at the surface. Dispersion increases the
likelihood for the oil to be biodegraded both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is
the surface in diffuse clouds, where it began to ~ffus~_!!I1_~_~!Q~_~~_a~!!_at_~el?tl1..___~_r.t?YJQ!I_~_~!!!y~t?sJ~~v_t? ___ ----- .coini1ient[nl]: What isthafshould-Dot intrCiduce
ailotherword_ We should,ilsetbe sam. words ..
shown evidence of~iffus~ ~)_q!l_~~_ Qf.~j~P.t?~~_t?~_ Q\I_ ~~~_~~!'! _~ ~9_Q _~~_ ~~Q9_ f.~~! J_Il_ !()_"Y. _~()!'!~_~I1~~~~i_q!1.~, ______ _
,beCor._ dissol~Od1. Othetl
-, - , moving in the direction of known ocean currents and decreasing concentl'tltions with distance from the
.~,
Coininent'[J;2]:tioesthat has the Si.n. meaning
wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2,
as the lin. abo'vo: Contusing
,
hnp:llecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.htmI).!OiI that w~ chemically dispersedatthe surface
remained atthe surface arid began tobiodegnide theret _________________________________________________________________ -_---;:~~~~:':t;~:"~
LI"",,t
Dissolution in the water column is distinct from dispersion. Dispersed oil is small droplets of oil, while
estimated 26% remains unaccounted for???? This figure is a combination of categories that are difficult
to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just below the surface in the form of light sheen or
tarballs, oil that has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and
sediments and that may resurface through time. This oil has also begun to degrade through a number of
natural processes.
008535
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface ofthe water naturally
biodegrade. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the
from Ithis sourcepsJ~i?.d~~~djng.q1.!i~!<;.Iy, ..~~~~rrt}!'.1! .fi:<?!Tl. N9MJ. ~~~ _a~~. !?Q~ .~~. \V!JrkIf!g. t() ..
calculate a more precIse estimate of this rate. It IS well known that bactena that break down the
dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because
of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of
H. _
____ '
.[
ComI1M!l1l[n4]:ViIgue: Is it DWH wen? Just say

-so..
.. .
...
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonfBP wellhead between April 22, 20 10 and July 15,
20 I 0, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite:
Flow Rate Ti:chnicaloToup;website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
4.9 million barrels ofoil.
The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directlyarld reported in daily operational
reports. The skimming numbers were also based ~1'\dailyreported esthnate~.Ih~_~~_s_t_!Jf.~~_!!~~~~ .... _..... -{~~t [n5J:,WbY?WlIS IhIIinotm~1 'J
t Why.IStl ono/~ted.. .
'.
www.restol'ethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
distribution and impact of oillther~: J~~~. h~_ Y..f!.!!l.fu!~, ~_I?~i.t~!'~_~ JW!l, ~~_!Jf.~~!lJ?C!.s.~t ~~ _t_~~. 91.!!f.~~.. __ ..... f:~~t~6]:~? Th~js:.,.gucSubmirfi.c1
.01. .
.
.
".
.
. '.
crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous iNo~L. ~~. J'lS!~...... _... '. { ComIilel1t[n7Ji What about seafoOd safi:ty'l71. 1
008536
Gul f ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural r.esources
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July30, 2010, contains
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. These cylindrical images comoinetIle1:hlee
categories of chemically disper~d; natural,y dispersed; and evaporated dissolved, into one colored
segment., ~nieimageon page 'one 'ofAppendix A uses thecumulatlverelease estimate Of 4.9 M. barrels,
which is the san1:e as the piediart used above; The three images represent the actual estimate, as well as
the upper and lower bound of the 10 % uncertainty of the estimate.
or
008537
Deepwater BorizonlBP Oil Budget

Authors

Marcia McNutt. USGS, DOl
Credits
Steve Hale. Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) Technical advisors
Kevin Gallagher. Stephen Hammond and Martha Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
refine the analysis and this document will be updated as apprnpriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan. SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
008538
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a tool,
2010 by the National Incident Command's Flow Rate Teclmical Group (FRTG), led by United States
removed one quarter of oil released from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated
the surface as residue and weathered tarbaIls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is

Based on E$rimated release of 4.9 M barrels of oil
Residual uil indudt>s
oil that is 011 or lust
bf:!low tie surfa,e Cib
lesJOIJe Clf,,:d vJeCltht!r~d
larbaLs, has ",.shed
a.hare or been
collected (rom the
sho"~, or some Is
buriec if' ~and ~nd

sedimi1ntl..
Federal
Re~pon.e
Operatiom
008539
systems (17%), buming (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% ofthe oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 8% was
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out ofthe broken riser pipe at high speed into the
analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a
ended up both in the water column and at the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood for the oil to
be biodegraded both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded, dispersed oil, even
in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oil and much ofthe oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse clouds. where it began to diffuse and biodegrade. Previous analyses have shown
the direction of known ocean currents and decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal
Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2,http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).Piithilt:Was
chemically dispersed. at tbesurfaeeremained at thesUrfaceandhegan to biodegrade merel
mn
.... n
. . . . . . __ _
Dissolution in the water column is distinct from dispersion. Dispersed oil is small droplets of oi I, whi Ie
estimate. It includes oil still on or just below the surface in the form of light sheen or tarballs, oil that
has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and
fconllne~t.J:1':~.~~i:trom~lJl""'1 ....
! __ -....oweouww ......erengoes.
'j
008540
biodegrade. While there is more analysis to be done to quantifY the exact rate of biodegradation in the
dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the
over the course of the spill. The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions ofthe
Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Departrnent of Energy (DOE) scientists and
Flow Rate Technical Greup, website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
understanding ofthe fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal government will continue to report
www.geo.platform.gov.
crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA and NSF
008541
released 'and oil remaining in the environment; and to mitigate impacts of oil to wild Iife, natural
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulfincident Budget Tool Report from ~August 1,2010,
contains detailed explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey
in collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
representing the same numbers as thepie chart above. These cylindrical images cOinbine the. three
ca~~goriesofch~miClilly. ~isp'ersed,n,at4rallydlsperse~ .and evaporated ordi:;solv~into oIl.eco\ored
seginent., Th(!cylindrica!,chartand lineirraph~ on p!lge~j)necandtwoofAppe~4ixAii$~fue
climula~ivereleaseestiinateof4:9 M:~tli:Tels; ""tiii;h isWesameai; the. piechartuSe,d',abAve;cThe reports
showirtHi er FlowEstiinateaild Lower 'Flow Estinuite're resent
er and lower bound6f'the
10%tincertain .. on the release estimate ..e:ihT:e1iJrnilge~ tepi'eseQt ~eactUa1;~tiiriate;) aSwellasthe
upper aildJowerbetmct::6fth'eTO%UncertairitY'of th~ ,esrunate.I .................................................... _..... coinmelitISB2]:Yin nOt siueqiiiieWhiit~
the u
.' Orilliiuilly iritend.edhe..... i',ve jlI:ovidedilii alieinate

.xplimation . iScPnSistent witlrthe ;'p<>rtitself. .
008542
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget

Authors
Credits
+.,U --{
LTOg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
Antonio Pass 010 and Pedro Espina (NIST) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R program
LCDR Lance Lindgren. CDR Peter Hoffman. CDR Sean O'Brien. and LT Amy McElroy (USCGlApplication requirements and user stories
Sky Bristol and Tim Kem (USGS) - Project vision and management
De'rid Maek (USGS) Lead aj'lj'llisatisA de'ielsj'ler

JeffAlieA (USGS) !AteFfase desigAer
Bill LeRr (t-IOA:i\) bead mass balSA6e SAd eill:lHEiget s6ieAtist
LCDR LSAse LiAEigl'eA SAd CDR Peter Hsf:!fflSA (USCG) Aj'lj'llieatisA reql:liremeAts
Ste'o'e Hale, KeAt MergSA,.KeyiA Lal:lreAt, SAd Jerry MeFEII:I1 (USGS) Teelmieal ad'lissrs
Sic), Bristsl SAd Tim Kern (USGS) Prejeet yisisA aAd mSAagemeAt
KeyiA Gallagfler, Stej'lHeA HammsAd aRd MartHa Gareia (USGS) l\)ce6I:1ti'le sl3sRssrs
refine the analysis and this document will be updated as appropriate,
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpiiTec
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5'
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5', Right: 0", Line

spacing: Single, No bullets or numbering
008543

Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
008544
DRAFT 7.31v Ilpm

determine where the oil went. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released
and how this oil is moving and degrading.

Based on 60,000 barrels/dav flow rate
"Remaining oil is either at
the surface as light sheen
or weathered lar balls.

has, been blooBgradw, or
has already rome ashore.
8%
~~.,..-----,-.,............,~
Figure 1; Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
Flow Rate: The on Budget Calculator starts with an estimate of the cumulative amount of oil released
over the course ofthe spill. This number is based on flow rate estimates from The Flow Rate Technical
Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command. The most recent estimate ofthe Flow
HorizonIBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% kite: Flow Rate Technical Group.
website or report?). They estimate that the daily flow rate ranged from 62,000 barrels per day on April
22, 2010 to 53,000 barrels per day on July 15, 2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. To
represent the ten percent uncertainty in the flow rate estimate, the Oil Budget Calculator shows two
scenarios, one based on the estimated flow rate plus ten percent, referred to at the "higher flow"
estimate, and one on the estimated flow rate minus ten percent, referred to as the "lower flow" estimate.
The pie chart above is based on the higher flow estimate.
008545
Direct Measures ands Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The
The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were
based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific
analysis.
chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oil. This includes
(16%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, buming and
Natural dispersion occurs as a result ofthe oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
diameter of a human hair). Chemical dispersion also deliberately breaks the oil up into smaller droplets
which keeps it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and makes it more readily available for
biodegradation.
Report I and 2, h :llecowatch.ncddc.noaa. ov/JAGJre orts.html). As described below, this oil appears
to be in the process of natural ~iodegradatio ........................................................................... _
Evaporation: It is estimated that 25 % of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
Comment [n1]: AB described below, dispersion

i. the indispensable ptooess that allows nBlllnil
biodegradation 10 take place; .
Oildisp.rsiOtri......... the chancos fur th. oil to be
n!lf!lrillly dissolv.id.lI!1d biodegnlded
.
!Remaining:. ~ft~!.~~l;Imil1g.fC?r. ~~Y~l)'. ojle_n:t!~()!!~,_~!'!~!J.1.i_<:~J_~~_!!~~~.~}!I~~ig!!.~.4 .~:VlIP.or.ll~i.()!,!,.... _._,--{ Commeilt[il2]: Notji good !erni;
an estimated 27 % remains. This fraction may represent some uncertainties in our measurements as well
as oil that is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, et'-itit may have been fie;;
biodegraded or has already come ashore.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and ~ weathered surface oil are naturally
biodegraded. Naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the
008546
to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the oil from
this well is biodegrading quickly.
one quarter of the oil. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulf waters. The remaiAiAg amOl:lflt.
,!just over one quarter of the total oi I released is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already
removed from the shore or has been ~iodegrade4.
u
____ 00 _____________ 00 ________ 00 00 m
_____ m u m 00 m
___ 00 m
___ m _
------1.Coin
.. b
,/??[n31:Whai about what i~ in the
susuce:
mentrfa
t'
for as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the concentration,distribution and
impact of oil there_ NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop monitoring
strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 20 10, contains
"
.1
.
008547
Deepwater HorizonIBP Oil Budget Calculator:

Authors

Marcia McNutt, USGS, 001
Mark Sogge, USGS, 001
Credits
The following eKperts were consulted on the oil budget calculations, contributed field data, suggested
fonnulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
008548
DRAFT 8.3v llam

specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One team calculated the flow rate and total oil
released. Led by United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and Energy
Secretary Steven Chu, this team announced on August 2, 2010 that it estimates that a total of 4.9m
barrels of oil have been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well. A second interagency team, led
by DOl and NOAA developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what happened to
the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9m barrel estimate as its input and uses both direct measurements and
the best scientific estimates available to date, to determine what has happened to the oil. The
interagency scientific report below describes the outputs of the oil budget calculator.
quarter of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or
dissolved, and just less than one quarter was dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as
microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The residual amount, just over one quarter, is either on or just
below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore,
is buried in sand and sediments, or has degraded. The report below describes each of these categories
and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information becomes
available.

Based on estimated release oj 4.9m barrels oj oil
Residual includes oil

the surface as residue
and weathered tarballs,
has washed ashore or
been collected from the
sand and sediments.
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
8%
I
.--------------.1
*These 3 percentages rewe,ent
I
oil initially in these categories that
._ ._._._ . _______________ ._ _ _._. . . _._._._ . _._. . _. _._ _ .________________.__. _. ______._ . _.___________::~_~~._:~~~~~~~_~~_..___._______J

008549
shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 33% of the spilled oil.
systems (17%), burning (5%), skinuning (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning
and skinuning remove the oil from the water entirely, while chemically dispersed oil remains in the
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water
column, which caused some of the oil to spray offin small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis,
'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a human hair.
Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they
then begin to biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from
coming ashore in large surface slicks and make it more readily available for biodegradation. Chemical
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
008550
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July 15,
FlowRateTechnioalGroup, website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
expertise". Further information on these methods is available in Appendix A. These numbers will
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurface scanning and sampling to monitor the concentration.
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAAand NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation.
008551
to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. DOl is leading
efforts to mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife, natural resources, and public lands. Scientists
and are investigating the rates of biodegradation of sub-surface oil.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,2010, contains
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. These cylindrical images combine the three
segment. The cylindrical image on page one of Appendix A uses the cumulative release estimate of 4.9
M barrels, which is the same as the pie chart used above. The cylindrical chart on pages 3 and 5 of the .
report are based on the Higher Flow Estimate and Lower Flow Estimate representing the upper and
lower bound of the 10% uncertainty on the 4.9 M barrel cumulative release estimate.
008552

Authors
Credits
LTGg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
008553
1.
How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate length of time
or a range?
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf. Biodegradation speed
varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. Dispersed and residual oil will
biodegrade, and that
NOAA NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying, and we hope to
have results soon.
2.
Has the data already been peer-reviewed, or is it going to be peer-reviewed? Also, did outside
scientists help with the calculations?
3.
With all the ships and dispersants and the skimming and the burning, why did 67 percent of
the oil In this incident elude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
There are a number of factors, one thing to keep in mind, is that oil that was natural dispersion,
evaporation and dissolution happen pretty much right away and so that oil Is not available to
respond to.
Of what was left, the Unified command addressed more than half ofthat, between burning,
.
skimming, and direct recovery.
4.
You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent? How can
you say that if there's nothing to compare it to? Why is 33 percent a positive number? Why
not 50 percent? See answer above.
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique. Because this is further from the
shore, the impacts have been different.
5.
Chemical dispersants were only responsible for eliminating 8 percent of the oil, according to
the oil budget report. If that's so, why did the federal government allow BP to use such
unprecedented amounts of an ineffective toxic chemical, the effects of which have hardly
been tested on the natural environment and certainly not in these amounts?
It is important to note that 8% of the spilled oil represents approximately 16 million gallons oil
that might otherwise have washed up on beaches and marshes.
008554
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life, and
has recently released itsecond report about that subject.
9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other
6.
Using the oil budget report as a guide, given the effectiveness of the various mitigation
efforts, how should the federal government have changed its response efforts?
What this report shows is where the oil ended up. We can see that the very aggressive and
coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Command were successful in
dealing with nearly one third of the oil. We have also been fortunate that mother nature has
helped as well, with natural dispersion, evaporation and dissolution accounting for a significant
portion of the oil.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline areas
where tar balls may still come ashore, and we continue to collect data and do research to
quantify the concentrations and location of subsurface oil, and better understand the long term
impacts of this spill.
7.
How long will the oil be present and visible in the GulfThere is very little visible oil left in Gulf waters. At this point there are small amounts of residual
oil on or just below the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls.
8. What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for this spill?
This report has no impact on BPs financial liability for this spill. They are still required to restore
for all damages to natural resources (NRDA) and they can be fined based on the volume
released as outlined in the Clean Water Act. As we have said all along we will hold BP fully
accountable for the damage they have done.
9.
Where is the remaining oil?

The remaining oil is found in two categories, residual oil and dispersed oil, which combined
account for half (50%) of the total release of oil from the spill.
The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as light
sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried
in sand and sediments.
The dispersed amount contains both oil dispersed naturally through the water column, which
we estimate to be 16% and chemically dispersed, which we estimate to be 8% broken up by the
application of chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
008555
For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100
microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally
buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to biodegrade
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column
and at the surface.
Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system and until they degrade through a number of
natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient
and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps
regularly.
10. Is there oil on the seafloor?
There is not oil on the deep sea floor. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far as we can
determine, is primarily in the water column itself not sitting on the sea floor.
In some of the near shore areas there are reports of tar balls essentially laying on the sea floor,
or tar mats, this can occur in cases where the tar balls have come ashore onto beaches and have
picked up sand or other material, then washed back out in the surf. The sand and sediment
causes them to sink and stay on the bottom.
11. Do you believe this is the worst environmental disaster?
The sheer volume of oil that was released means there will be some significant impacts.
We've seen some of those impacts play out in ways that are more obvious because they're at
the surface. What we have yet to determine is the full impact that the oil will have beneath the
surface.
And we have a very aggressive research effort underway to determine exactly that. As we
mention in this report, the oil that is beneath the surface appears to be being biodegraded
relatively quickly, so that is positive.
There is still likely a significant amount of oil out there simply because there was so much
released. So this is an area where it will take time to evaluate exactly what the impact is both
short term and long term and that underscores the importance of having this very aggressive
monitoring and research effort underway to help us actually better understand the situation
and learn from this.
12. A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range. Is that still the
case?
008556
That is the range for that dataset. Our first report found concentrations of 1-2 parts per million
based on chemical analysis of water samples. The second report used fluorometric data and
based on calibrations of fluorometers, indicated a likely concentration of 4-7 ppm or less in the
sampled areas. There are variations depending on the methods used to analyze subsurface oil
concentrations. The Joint Analytical Group will soon release chemical analytical data from the
research missions that will add to our understanding of the overall picture of where oil is below
the surface.
The main point here is that the oil that is subsurface is, as far as we can tell, in very small
droplets, microscopic droplets and in very, very dilute concentrations falling off very steeply as
one goes away from the well site.
Dilute does not mean benign, but it is in very small concentrations and we continue to measure
where it is and track it and try to understand its impact.
008557
1.
How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate length of time
ora range?
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf. Biodegradation speed
varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions:,... Dispersed and residl:lal oil will
biodegrade, and that
NOAA NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying, and we hope to
have results soon.
2.
Has the data already been peeNeviewed, or is it going to be peer-reviewed? Also, did outside
scientists help with the calculations?
3.
With all the ships and dispersants and the skimming and the burning, why did 67 percent of
the oil in this incident elude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
There are a number of tastors, OReOne thing to keep in mind, is that oil that was natural
dispersed+eA, eva po rate dt+eA aREi-or dissolvedWaA which happen~ pretty much right away and
se-that oil Is not available to respond to.
Of what was left, the Unified command addressed more than half of that, between burning,
skimming, and direct recovery.
4.
You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent? How can
you say that if there's nothing to compare it to? Why is 33 percent a positive number? Why
not 50 percent? See answer above.
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique. Because this is further from the
shore, the impacts have been different.
We are still trying to get definitive data - it appears that for the Exxon Valdez the total
accounted for by response was approximately 1M gal or around 10%.
5.
Chemical dispersants were only responsible for eliminating 8 percent of the oil, according to
the oil budget report. If that's so, why did the federal government allow BP to use such
unprecedented amounts of an ineffective toxic chemical, the effects of which have hardly
been tested on the natural environment and certainly not in these amounts?
It is important to note that 8% of the spilled oil represents approximately 16 million gallons oil
that might otherwise have washed up on beaches and marshes.
008558
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life, and
has recently released it second report about that subject.
9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other
6.
Using the oil budget report as a guide, given the effectiveness of the various mitigation
efforts, how should the federal government have changed its response efforts?
What this report shows is where the oil ended up. '!'Ie can see that the very aggressive and
coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Command were successful in
dealing with nearly one third of the oil. We have also been fortunate that mother nature has
helped as well, with natural dispersion, evaporation and dissolution accounting for a significant
portion of the oil.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline areas
where tar balls may still come ashore, and we continue to collect data and do research to
quantify the concentrations and location of subsurface oil, and better understand the long term
impacts of this spill.
7.
How long will the oil be present and visible in the Gulf There is very little visible oil left in Gulf waters. At this point there are small amounts of residual
oil on or just below the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls.
8.
What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for this spill?
This report has no impact on BPs financial liability for this spill. They are still required to restore
for all damages to natural resources (NRDA) and they can be fined based on the volume
released as outlined in the Clean Water Act. As we have said all along we will hold BP fully
accountable for the damage they have done.
9.
Where is the remaining oil?

The remaining oil is found in two categories, residual oil and dispersed oil, which combined
account for half (50%) of the total release of oil from the spill.
The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as light
sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried
in sand and sediments.
008559
The dispersed amount contains both oil dispersed naturally through the water column, which
we estimate to be 16% and chemically dispersed, which we estimate to be 8% broken up by the
application of chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100
microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally
buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to biodegrade
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column
and at the surface.
Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system and until they degrade through a number of
natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient
and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps
regularly.
10. Is there oil on the seafloor?

There is not oil on the deep sea floor. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far as we can
determine, is primarily in the water column itself not sitting on the sea floor.
In some of the near shore areas there are reports of tar balls essentially laying on the sea floor,
or tar mats, this can occur in cases where the tar balls have come ashore onto beaches and have
picked up sandor other material, then washed back out in the surf. The sand and sediment
causes them to sink and stay on the bottom.
11. Do you believe this is the worst environmental disaster?
The sheer volume of oil that was released means there will be some significant impacts.
We've seen some of those impacts play out in ways that are more obvious because they're at
the surface. What we have yet to determine is the full impact that the oil will have beneath the
surface.
And we have a very aggressive research effort underway to determine exactly that. As we
mention in this report, the oil that is beneath the surface appears to be being biodegraded
relatively quickly, so that is positive.
There is still likely a significant amount of oil out there simply because there was so much
released. So this is an area where it will take time to evaluate exactly what the impact is both
short term and long term and that underscores the importance of having this very aggressive
monitoring and research effort underway to help us actually better understand the situation
and learn from this.
008560
12. A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 47 ppm range. Is that still the
case?
That is the range for that dataset. Our first report found concentrations of 1-2 parts per million
based on chemical analysis of water samples. The second report used fluorometric data and
based on calibrations of fluorometers, indicated a likely concentration of 4-7 ppm or less in the
sampled areas. There are variations depending on the methods used to analyze subsurface oil
concentrations. The Joint Analytical Group will soon release chemical analytical data from the
research missions that will add to our understanding of the overall picture of where oil is below
the surface.
The main point here is that the oil that is subsurface is, as far as we can tell, in very small
droplets, microscopic droplets and in very, very dilute concentrations falling off very steeply as
one goes away from the well site.
Dilute does not mean benign, but it is in very small concentrations and we continue to measure
where it is and track it and try to understand its impact.
008561
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident on Budget

Synopsis: In collaboration with the USCG, NOAA, and NIST, the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) has developed a Web application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident
Oil Budget, which allows comprehensive tracking and graphical display of the daily and
cumulative oil budget in the Gulf.
Federal personnel collaborated to ensure that the oil budget tool supports absolute data integrity,
specialized software. The tool offers a basic user interface for daily data entry and reporting,

improved information becomes available;
Dynamic creation of graphs showing modeled low flow rate/maximum removal and high
Generation of executive summaries, showing the most up~to~date calculated daily and
cumulative values.
The tool incorporates succinct descriptions, including assumptions and factors used for
calculations such as amount of oil burned, skimmed, or remained unaffected, in the online
application and printed reports.
For example: Skimmed oil is a rough oalculation based on the daily reported amount of oily water
multiplied by a factored estimation of net oil oontent. The net oil factor is different for the Maximum and
Minimum removal scenarios. The skimmed oil estimate is vety rough. The aotual amount of skimmed oil
The Oil Budget tool is being updated as new information becomes available and desired
capabilities are identified. Based on the rapid response to this incident, the USGS is poised to
apply extensive scientific and technical expertise to benefit other environmental emergencies.
Background: Since the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil-drilling rig, the (USGS)
has been actively involved with the National Incident Command Center, helping to inform
decisions in response to the ensuing oil spill. The USGS is collaborating with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to provide scientific and technical expertise to aid
the oil spill management and recovery effort.
The USGS developed a Web application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident
Oil Budget, to track the discharged oil and results of subsequent processes that affect oil volumes
in the Gulf. Secure Web architecture and a rapid application development process, instituted for
other Web-based applications used by USGS scientists, was used to construct the Oil Budget
application, synthesizing information collected and maintained by the USCG.
008562
Oil Budget Tool Data Table - Template
Flow Scenario (###### barrels/day)

Through <date>
.:.
. . '<:
......
. : ...
....;
...........
'>:,; ;' .. , '. ''''\2. ....
'
C'umtil.ative
1')'VOIl.l me . . '.
. . paily .
Volurne . '
Discharged
Dispersed Naturally
Burned
Skimmed
Dispersant Used
Remaining
. ".::,
...
.' , .\:,,'
c,"i'
All units are in barrels

'
..
.....
.'
....
".
'
... :.,
Cumulative
Weight . .
1 .....
Inland Recovery
Weight is in tons
008563
Reference Notes for the Oil Budget Tool

Chart Descriptions
Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining of the Surface
The volume of oil that each day is added to the volume of oil already on the surface is computed
taking into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via the Top
Hat). and the volume that is evaporated or dissolved, skimmed. burned. or dispersed (either
Deepwater Horizon MC-2S2 - Cumulative Disposition of Oil
The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount
of oil released over time based on low and high discharge estimates, the relative amounts of oil
recovered or dispersed by both natural and management methods, and the total remaining oil
calculated by the oil budget model. The values used in the chart come from the calculations in a
statistical model and correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the footnotes
(available in the Web application by clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on
the individual calculations and fUrther reference material.
Data and Variable Descriptions

Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports come from the low and high estimates determined by
the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon incident. Discharge rates are
adjusted over time in the data behind the application based on analyses by the FRTG of changing
dynamics in the incident (e.g., severing the riser).
.
Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PN measurements.
Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut.
Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values.
Note: Refer to the section on Leakage in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a full
RITT and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil
from the spill flow. Values for the amount recovered by the vessels Helix Producer, Discoverer
Enterprise and the Q4000 are reported by BP, entered daily by National Incident Command
personnel, and used in the calculation of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of all daily
values entered.
008564
Dispersed Naturally
Natural oil dispersion is estimated using the methods described in this annotation and
background documentation. The following assumptions and factors apply:
Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed
Natural subsurface dispersion is a calculation of the total discharge minus a calculation of
subsurface chemical dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural dispersion effectiveness
derived from a scientific method of determining oil dispersion in the water column. A
higher factor is used for the "Maximum Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of
oil "removed." See background documentation for more information.
Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Fonnulas (link) document for a
full discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
Evaporation and dissolution occur naturally with oil on the surface. This element in the report is
the result of a scientific calculation using the methods described in this annotation and
background documentation. The following assumptions and factors apply:
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and
older oil for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference
in this rate. The evaporation/dissolution calculation first determines the remaining oil available
for evaporative processes by removing the following from the total discharge:
Measured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat
The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific
research and current observations conducted on the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Note: Refer to the section on Evaporated and Dissolved Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas
document for a full discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the remaining oil after
removing the following from the total discharge:
008565
dispersant applied and recorded daily and acting on both surface and subsurface oil. The
following assumptions and factors apply:
International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of
20: 1 used as estimate for successful chemical dispersant application
discussion ofthe scientific methodology used in this calculation.
Burned
Total burned values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel and used in daily
and curnulative totals.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) bum rate standards are used
Note: Refer to the section on Burning Losses in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a
discussion of the methodology used in this calculated measurement.
Skimmed
Skimmed oil is a rough calculation based on the daily reported amount of oily water multiplied
by a factored estimation of net oil content. The net oil factor is different for the Maximum and
Minimum removal scenarios.
The actual amount of skimmed oil should ultimately be based on actual measurement
Note: Refer to the section on Skimmed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a
discussion of this calculation.
Dispersant Used
The amount of dispersant used is recorded each day of the incident by National Incident
Command personnel. It is an actual measurement of the total dispersant used via all methods
employed.
Remaining
Inland Recovery
Inland Recovery is a rough total number of tons of oily debris collected using a variety of
methods. It is reported to the U.S. Coast Guard on an intermittent basis from contract
organizations involved in the cleanup effort and reported in the tool as an indication of activity
impacting the overall oil recovery process. The Inland Recovery values are for reporting
purposes only and are not included in the oil budget calculation due to the rough nature of the
data and the ability to determine actual oil content.
008566
We are about to release a report that shows what happened to the oil. This
report helps answer the question that everyone is asking - where did all
the oil go?
As you know, teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking
the oil since day one of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts
and their collective expertise, they are now able to provide these useful
estimates.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever

possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements
were not possible. The tool uses the Flow Rate Technical Group's estimate
from yesterday as its starting point, which is a cumulative release of 4.9m
barrels of oil.
From that, we estimate that the Unified Command's aggressive recovery

operations, including burning, skimming and direct recovery from the
wellhead were successful in removing one quarter of the oil.
An additional one quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved,
And just less than one quarter was dispersed, either naturally or chemically,
into microscopic droplets into Gulf waters.
The residual amount, just over one quarter, is either on or just below the
surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been
collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments.
Therefore approximately half the oil is no longer in the system.
The dispersed and residual oil do remain in the system until they degrade
through a number of natural processes.
008567
While further analysis remains to be done to quantify that rate of

degradation, early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
Other research efforts are underway to quantify the location and

concentrations of subsurface oil, and results thus far have shown diffuse
clouds of oil, in concentrations in the low parts per million, at depth.
NOAA and other scientists continue that monitoring and water sampling,
while NOAA, NSF and DOE are conducting studies to better quantify the
rate of biodegration.
As for residual oil, some of it is on shorelines, and we know that over 600
miles of Gulf shoreline have been impacted.
Much of it remains in the water where it continues to weather and degrade

into small tarballs. At this point most tarbalis are just below the surface
and are very difficult to see with our normal surveillance activities.
These tarballs continue to come ashore intermittently in some areas and

NOAA and Unified Command are continuing to actively monitoring at risk
near shore areas. {need a line or two about the sentinel program}
008568
Georgia Sea Grant and researchers at the University of Georgia released a report estimating that as
much as 80% of oil from Gulf spill remains.
Fed Oil Budget report concluded that
25% of oil was recovered, burned or skimmed
25% was evaporated or dissolved
24% was dispersed, (16% naturally, 8% chemically)*
26% is residual - includes oil that is on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered
tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and
sediments. *
*It was noted that dispersed oil, whether naturally or chemically, and residual oil is in the
process of being degraded naturally.
Q&A: Where is the remaining oil? The remaining oil is found in two categories, residual oil and
dispersed oil, which combined account for half (50%) of the total release of oil from the spill.
Differences in numbers:
1000"" reference point - The Sea Grant report uses a different starting point - Federal report accounts
for all released oil, based on FRTG estimate of 4.9 M barrels released. Therefore one piece of the pie is
the approximately 800,000 barrels (17%) recovered directly from the wellhead as part of the unified
command response.
The Sea Grant pie chart does not account for that oil, and begins with a starting point of 4.1 M barrels of
oil that actually got into the water. That generally makes their percentages higher.
Evaporation and Dissolution
UGA "The group showed that it was impossible for all the dissolved oil to have evaporated because only
oil at the surface ofthe ocean can evaporate into the atmosphere and large plumes of oil are trapped in
deep water."
Fed pie chart has 'evaporated OR dissolved" as a category, it does not claim that dissolved oil parts
evaporated, rather that some oil evaporated while other oil dissolved.
Sea Grant report makes not estimate of dissolution whereas our scientists have said that in this unique
instance with oil traveling almost a mile through the water column, more oil dissolved into the water
column than is often the case in oil spills, and likely accounts for a significant amount of oil.
Oil that did reach the surface was subject to evaporation. Calculations accounted for both of these
things and used different rates of evaporation for fresh versus weathered oil, to get the best possible
estimate for evaporation.
008569
VIlQclld?b~l.pttp::ha\f~;$olrt~tbio{rOn~a'~kgtc>i.l~'d;A~qJi'(WHAT QiSsOLVEI)()It;BEG()rv1ES - "Dissolution is

the process by which individual hydrocarbon molecules from the oil separate and dissolve into the
water"
When components of crude oil dissolve, they diffuse out into the water column. The Federal report
does not attempt to discuss the toxicity of the hydrocarbons that dissolve or evaporate, nor does it
discuss the toxicity of dispersed oil, but acknowledges that the each is a concern.
Fed Report
"Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water
column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded, naturally or chemically dispersed oil,
even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species."
"Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since
the capping of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the
impact of the spill to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on
wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued
monitoring and research."
Can't folloW how theycalclJlatedevaporatioh. Sea Grant Report Explanation - liThe NIC report
estimates that 1.2 million barrels (30%) of oil released at the wellhead dissolved in the water and are,
therefore, in a form that could evaporate. However, for oil to evaporate, it must come in contact with
the atmosphere. Without knowing how much of the oil is at various depths, it is difficult to estimate
how much oil could have reached the surface in order to evaporate. Our experts set the range of
evaporation at 25% (see Figure 3) to 40% (see Figure 2). Based on this estimate, we calculated that
between 306,000 and 490,000 barrels of oil have evaporated into the atmosphere and are no longer in
the Gulf of Mexico. This amounts to 8-12% of the total oil spilled into the Gulf.
Rates of degradation Both reports acknowledge that more work is underway to quantify degradation
w
rates, and that it is difficult to estimate. The Sea Grant attempts to estimate rates of biodegradation.
This is something the Federal scientists felt they did not have enough reliable information on which to
base such estimates. Federal report accounts for where oil ended up initially and noted three categories
that are currently being naturally degraded.
Fed take on degradation
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf.
Biodegradation speed varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. NOAA
NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying, and we hope to
have results soon.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil
are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the
favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico
008570
through natural seeps regularly. While further analysis remains to be done to quantify
the rate of degradation, early indications are that this oil is degrading quickly.
Sea Grant Report on Degradation:
"it is difficult to infer decomposition rates from studies of previous spills occurring closer
to the surface. However, several scientific studies are currently underway to directly
address this critical need"
"We asked our scientific experts to estimate, as best they could, the percentage of
subsurface oil that has degraded. They suggested a range of between 5% (see Figure 3)
and 10% (see Figure 2). Given that estimate, we calculated that between 168,000 and
319,000 barrels have been removed from the Gulf through degradation. This is
equivalent to 4-8% ofthe total oil released into the water."
Other motivation for Sea Grant report is that media misinterpreted Fed Report to imply oil was no
longer a threat "This group determined that the media interpretation of the report's findings has been largely
inaccurate and misleading. Oil that the NIC report categorizes as Evaporated or Dissolved, Naturally
Dispersed and Chemically Dispersed has been widely interpreted by the media to mean "gone" and no
longer a threat to the ecosystem." - UGA report
"One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless,"
said Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant... "We are still far from a complete understanding
of what its impacts are." - UGA press release.
NOAA Press Release: "Less oil on the surface does not mean that there isn't oil
still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk.
Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of
risk and likely impacts. The estimates do not make conclusions about the longterm impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully understanding the damages and impacts of
the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something that will take time and
continued monitoring and research."
Dr. L at WH Press Conference about Fed Oil Budget:
No one is saying that itJs not a threat any more. The oil that has been
completely degraded isnJt because when it is biodegraded it ends up being water
and carbon dioxide. So if it has been biodegraded J if itJs gone J then itJs not a
threat.
Oil that is in microscopic droplets that is still there may be toxic to any of
the small creatures under the water that are encountered
that it encounters.
And even in very small droplets it is -- can be toxic.
008571
We do remain concerned and are actively studying the overall impact that both the
oil at the surface and the oil subsurface has had on the entire ecosystem of the
Gulf. The oil that" is beneath the surface is in the process of very rapid
degradation. It~s disappearing very quickly. It is very dilute. As you go
farther and farther from the wellhead, the small microscopic droplets of oil are
very quickly diluted into parts per million -- parts per million, that's very,
very dilute. And farther away from the wellhead, it's even more dilute.
But diluted and out of sight doesn't necessarily mean benign. And we remain
concerned about the long-term impacts, both on the marshes and the wildlife, but
also beneath the surface, and are actively studying that, both as part of our
federal response and in partnership with much of the academic community that is
also very interested in the overall long-term impacts of this.
I think the common view of most of the scientists inside and outside government
is that the effects of this spill will likely linger for decades. The fact that
so much of the oil has been removed and in the process of being degraded is very
significant and means that the impact will not be even worse than it might have
been. But the oil that was released and has already impacted wildlife at the
surface, young juvenile stages and eggs beneath the surface, will likely have
very considerable impacts for years and possibly decades to come.
"The impact on the Gulf will take time to understand and to evaluate with
confidence. We are actively doing research and monitoring the impact, but it's
premature to talk about any systemic, overall impacts at this point because there
hasn't been enough time to do justice to that very important topic."
008572
Georgia Sea Grant and researchers at the University of Georgia released a report estimating that as
much as 80% of oil from Gulf spill remains.
Fed Oil Budget report concluded that
25% of oil was recovered, burned or skimmed
25% was evaporated or dissolved
24% was dispersed, (16% naturally, 8% chemically)*
26% is residual- includes oil that is on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered
tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and
sediments.
*It was noted that dispersed oil, whether naturally or chemically, and residual oil is in the
process of being degraded naturally.
Q&A: Where is the remaining oil? The remaining oil is found in two categories, residual oil and
dispersed oil, which combined account for half (50%) of the total release of oil from the spill.
Differences in numbers:
100% reference point - The Sea Grant report uses a different starting point - Federal report accounts
for all released oil, based on FRTG estimate of 4.9 M barrels released. Therefore one piece of the pie is
the approximately 800,000 barrels (17%) recovered directly from the wellhead as part of the unified
command response.
The Sea Grant pie chart does not aCCOf:lnt for that oillooks at only the oil that has been 'released" to the
environment so , aflEi-begins with a starting point of 4.1 M barrels of oil that actually got into the water~
That generally mal<es Therefore when they use the same numbers for burning and skimming their
percentages are higher.
Evaporation and Dissolution
UGA "The group showed that it was impossible for all the dissolved oil to have evaporated because only
oil at the surface of the ocean can evaporate into the atmosphere and large plumes of oil are trapped in
deep water."
Fed pie chart has 'evaporated OR dissolved" as a category, it does not claim that dissolved oil parts
evaporated, rather that some oil evaporated while other oil dissolved.
Sea Grant report ~does not make an estimate of dissolfoltion disoolved oil whereas our scientists
have said that in this unique instance with oil traveling almost a mile through the water column, more
oil dissolved into the water column than is often the case in oit spills, aRa IiImly aCCOI:lRts for a sigl'lificant
amount of oil.
008573
Oil that did reach the surface was subject to evaporation. Calculations accounted for both of these
things and used different rates of evaporation for fresh versus weathered oil, to get the best possible
estimate for evaporation.
Would help to have som.ething orl background ABOUT WHATDIS$QLV~DOIL BECOMES - "Dissolution is
the process by which individual hydrocarbon molecules from the oil separate and dissolve into the
water" -like sugar in tea.
When components of crude oil dissolve, they diffuse out into the water column. The Federal report
does not attempt to discuss the toxicity of the hydrocarbons that dissolve or evaporate, nor does it
discuss the toxicity of dispersed oil, but acknowledges that the each is a concern.
Fed Report
"Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water
column and at the surface. Until it is biodegrad.ed, naturally or chemically dispersed oil,
even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species."
"Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since
the capping of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the
impact of the spill to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on
wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued
monitoring and research."
Can'Udllow'how.theycalculatedevaporafion, [Their numbers are 25% and 40% of the 30% value
(that's where they get the 7 - 12% of the total released evaporate] Sea Grant Report Explanation - "The
NIC report estimates that 1.2 million barrels (30%) of oil released at the wellhead dissolved in the water
and are, therefore, in a form that could evaporate. However, for oil to evaporate, it must come in
contact with the atmosphere. Without knowing how much of the oil is at various depths, it is difficult to
estimate how much oil could have reached the surface in order to evaporate. Our experts set the range
of evaporation at 25% (see Figure 3) to 40% (see Figure 2). Based on this estimate, we calculated that
between 306,000 and 490,000 barrels of oil have evaporated into the atmosphere and are no longer in
the Gulfof Mexico. This amounts to 8-12% of the total oil spilled into the Gulf.
Rates of degradation - Both reports acknowledge that more work is underway to quantify degradation
rates, and that it is difficult to estimate. The Sea Grant attempts to estimate rates of biodegradation.
This is something the Federal scientists felt they did not have enough reliable information on which to
base such estimates. Federal report accounts for where oil ended up initially and noted three categories
that are currently being naturally degraded.
Fed take on degradation
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf.
Biodegradation speed varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. NOAA
008574
NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying, and we hope to
have results soon.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil
are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the
favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico
through natural seeps regularly. While further analysis remains to be done to quantify
the rate of degradation, early indications are that this oil is degrading quickly.
Sea Grant Report on Degradation:
"it is difficult to infer decomposition rates from studies of previous spills occurring closer
to the surface. However, several scientific studies are currently underway to directly
address this critical need"
"We asked our scientific experts to estimate, as best they could, the percentage of
subsurface oil that has degraded. They suggested a range of between 5% (see Figure 3)
and 10% (see Figure 2). Given that estimate, we calculated that between 168,000 and
319,000 barrels have been removed from the Gulf through degradation. This is
equivalent to 4-8% of the total oil released into the water."
Other motivation for Sea Grant report is that media misinterpreted Fed Report to imply oil was no
longer a threat - We agree that media reports that characterized our report as saying that 75% of the oil
is "gone" were inaccurate - how do we say that "nicely"
"This group determined that the media interpretation of the report's findings has been largely
inaccurate and misleading. Oil that the NIC report categorizes as Evaporated or Dissolved, Naturally
Dispersed and Chemically Dispersed has been widely interpreted by the media to mean "gone" and no
longer a threat to the ecosystem." - UGA report
"One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless,"
said Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant ... "We are still far from a complete understanding
of what its impacts are." - UGA press release.
NOAA Press Release: "Less oil on the surface does not mean that there .isn't oil
still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk.
Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of
risk and likely impacts. The estimates do not make conclusions about the longterm impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully understanding the damages and impacts of
the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something that will take time and
continued monitoring and research."
Dr. L at WH Press Conference about Fed Oil Budget:
No one is saying that it's not a threat any more. The oil that has been
completely degraded isn/t because when it is biodegraded it ends up being water
008575
and carbon dioxide.

threat.
So if it has been biodegraded, if it's gone, then it's not a
Oil that is in microscopic droplets that is still there may be toxic to any of
the small creatures under the water that are encountered
that it encounters.
And even in very small droplets it is -- can be toxic.
We do remain concerned and are actively studying the overall impact that both the
oil at the surface and the oil subsurface has had on the entire ecosystem of the
Gulf. The oil that is beneath the surface is in the process of very rapid
degradation. It's disappearing very quickly. It is very dilute. As you go
farther and farther from the wellhead, the small microscopic droplets of oil are
very quickly diluted into parts per million -- parts per million, that's very,
very dilute. And farther away from the wellhead, it's even more dilute.
But diluted and out of sight doesn't necessarily mean benign. And we remain
concerned about the long-term impacts, both on the marshes and the wildlife, but
also beneath the surface, and are actively studying that, both as part of our
federal response and in partnership with much of the academic community that is
also very interested in the overall long-term impacts of this.
I" think the common view of most of the scientists inside and outside government
is that the effects of this spill will likely linger for decades. The fact that
so much of the oil has been removed and in the process of being degraded is very
significant and means that the impact will not be even worse than it might have
been. But the oil that was released and has already impacted wildlife at the
surface, young juvenile stages and eggs beneath the surface, will likely have
very considerable impacts for years and possibly decades to come.
"The impact on the Gulf will take time to understand and to evaluate with
confidence. We are actively doing research and monitoring the impact, but it's
premature to talk about any systemiC, overall impacts at this point because there
hasn't been enough time to do justice to that very important topiC."
amy.ll1C1Ilroy@uscg.mill Change Password Ilogolf

High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 111Day 83) @ll Print
Cumulative Disposition of Oil .' ,.. Su,IlI~I~~~!~i~!n9.:
un~s
Chart Information (Edit)
in barrels. Click row label for more information.
low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 11 (Day 83)
All untts in barrels. Click row labal for more infannation.
~ Print
Chart Information (Edit)
008576
All
008577
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'.~~YS3~qs~~
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels'day) Through July 21 (Day 93) @ Prnt
Chait Information
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93)
Ptlnl
CUmulawe DIspo$iIion of Oil
Chan Information
008578
vult I rageoy
Subject: Gulf Tragedy

From: Clean Water Network <cwnheadquarters@cwn.org>
Date: Mon, 03 May 201011:00:03 -0400 (EDn
To: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
Clean Water Network News ALERT

Update on Gulf Oil Spill Disaster
stream and rocks
May 3rd, 2010
Small
New
Logo
Update from CWN Members &Partners about

the unprecedented environmental disaster on the Gulf Coast
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
Below is a recent update from Mobile Riverkeeper on the Gulf oil spill, which was forwarded on
Friday from our partners, the Tri-StateConservation Coalition and Upper Chattahoochee
Riverkeeper.
We will be sending as many updates and information bulletins as we can this week from a number
10f4
9/27/20102:01 PM
008579
vUlT Ifageay
of our member organizations, including the Gulf Restoration Network, that are all working around
the clock to battle this disastrous environmental crisis in the Gulf.
Natalie Roy
Clean Water Network
Forwarded message from Mobile Riverkeeper:

Friends, I am sure you are all aware by now that we are facing a crisis of unknown proportions.
We are working to create some what's up fact sheets, how to do something guides while also
working to learn what we didn't know anything about just 3 days ago.
I wanted to give everyone an update on where we're putting our energy and let you know that we
need all the support and ideas you can give.
First if you are interested in volunteering send an email to info@mobilebaykeeper.org or call
251-433-4229.
The simple update is that more than 5,000 barrels (210k gallons) per day are gushing out of a hole
more than a mile down on the Gulf floor. There is no way to stop the gushing any time soon, so no
matter what, we will see massive problems for quite some time. We're just still unsure exactly
what they will be.
We are working to collect and then coordinate volunteers. With or without help from our Unified
Command folks, we have 100s of people who want to help, our phones are ringing off the hook and
we need in the office help TODAY! We are also working to coordinate efforts to get boom out in
our critical fisheries habitat. Organizing that is a massive, but critical effort. We also just learned
that folks can start NOW by cleaning trash and debris out of wetland areas (NOT PLANTS).
We are setting our sites on a few "demands":
1)
More Resources NOW - we need more support, more money, more and better clean up.
2)
Caution - ideas are being bantered around like crazy. We need every one of them to be
completely vetted, thoroughly reviewed and studied for impacts to health, environmental and our
economy.
3)
Monitoring - Every medium and every pollutant mustbe monitored thoroughly and extensively.
4)
Transparency - The public must be allowed to get involved and the data must be presented in
completion to the public now.
5)
Give the 100s of community volunteers work to do right now! It is critical that we do not wait
to use the resources available. Volunteers need to be trained well and put to use as quickly as
possible.
We have just been effectively added to Unified Command and I will be headed to Waveland
Mississippi to meet with Administrator Jackson at 2:30 central.
This oil release is Northern Gulf Wide. It will go make landings from Louisiana to Florida starting
today (expected landfall starting today - LA, Saturday -- MS/AL, Sunday -- AUFL, Monday - FL).
We need to speak LOUDLY with a unified voice and we're hopeful these guys can help us do that.
Again, If you are interested in volunteering or know anyone who is, please email us name, contact
info and skills/support/equipment at info@mobilebaykeeper.org.
We are working to process and include everything. Any ideas for grants or other funding resources
would be greatly appreciated. We didn't exactly budget to work on oil and gas.
Casi (kc) Callaway
Executive Director & Baykeeper
20f4
9/27/2010 2:01 PM
008580
\..JUlI
rrageay
Mobile Baykeeper
300 Dauphin Street, Suite 200
Mobile, Alabama 36602
Providing Citizens a Means to Protect the Beauty, Health

& Heritage of the Mobile Bay Watershed.
Give the Gift of Clean Water: Renew Your 2010 Clean Water
Network Dues Today!
While you continue working on important environmental protection efforts on
behalf of your organization and community, please remember Clean Water
Network. It is critical this year that EVERY Clean Water Network (CWN)
member renew their dues to help us continue our important work on
Capitol Hill and across the country. Now, with the oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico poised to become the largest on record, it is imperative that the
clean water community continue to work together to protect our precious
water resources.
Please renew your membership dues today online by clicking on the
DONATE link below.
Clean Water Network
218 D Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
Dues are set by a sliding scale determined by your organization's budget. The
chart is posted below. We are also requesting that all CWN members fill out a
membership survey, available HERE. Thank you in advance for renewing your
support and for completing the member survey. Most importantly, thank you for
everything you do to protect our nation's waters!
Natalie Roy
Executive Director
Clean Water Network
DONATE
Membership Dues Chart
Organization's Budget
0-$100,000
$100,000-$250,000
$250,000-$500,000
$500,000-$2 million
30f4
Dues
$60
$150
$300
$700
9/27/2010 2:01 PM
008581
\.:lUll I ragedy
Over $2 million
$900
Clean Water Network
218 D Street SE
202.547.4208
check out our website at:
www.cleanwaternetwork.org
Forward email
Safe Unsubscribe
This email wassenttomark.w.miller@noaa.gov by cwnheadquarters@cwn.org.
Update profilelEmail Address I Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe I Privacy Policy.
Clean Water Network
40f4
I 218
0 St. SE
Email Marketing by
I Washington I DC I 20003
9/27/20102:01 PM
008582
I.\jV~
WI::I::Jl.JY - IVlay..:>, ,",UJU
Subject: NOS Weekly - May 3,2010

From: NOS Weekly <nosaa.weekly@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 11 :49:52 -0400
To: _NOS All Hands <nosallhands@noaa.gov>, distribution.nosweekly@noaa.gov
Weekly Update - May 3, 2010

Greetings,
Over the past week, I have had the privilege of seeing the men and women of the National Ocean Service at
their best. The extraordinary response by staff across NOS to the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
demonstrates a steadfast commitment to the communities and ecosystems in the region.
In addition to the exceptional work carried out by the Office of Response and Restoration, offices across NOS
have answered the call for support in the response and assessment effort. Here are just a few examples:
The Office of Coast Survey is developing custom navigation products and updating charts that depict
the oil spill daily.
The National Geodetic Survey is preparing to conduct aerial photo missions to provide updated
information about the spill.
The Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services is providing data from its
extensive network of water-level, meteorological, and near-shore current meters throughout the Gulf.
NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System (1005) program is serving as the liaison with 1005
partners .in the region who are providing data, tools, models, and other products.
The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries is providing information about resources at risk in the
region.
The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management is working closely with staff from the
National Estuarine Research Reserves in the Gulf of Mexico as well as coastal managers in the region to
identify needs and coordinate response efforts.
Field teams from the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science are being deployed to collect
samples at non-oiled mussel watch sites.
The Coastal Services Center is providing assessment information toward understanding the
socioeconomic impacts of the spill.
The Management and Budget Office is providing budget analysis and GIS support.
And the Office of Response and Restoration continues its massive assessment and response effort. You can
follow these efforts, as well as the work of other line offices in NOAA, at the OR&R Web site:
http://response.restoratlon.noaa.qov/deepwaterhorizon.
Thank you for the constant and determined actions you are taking every day. I am proud of your unwavering
commitment-in your response to the oil spill and in carrying out the day-to-day activities of NOS. It is the
not-sa-routine "routine" work that we do each day that Is essential in supporting sustainable coastal
communities, economies, and ecosystems. Thank you for all that you do.
I would also like to thank Holly and the program office directors for stepping in to handle meetings and other
NOS leadership actions and activities while I am downtown leading the cross-NOAA spill response activities. I
appreciate the fact that they are keeping me fully briefed on operations at NOS so that 1 can continue to be
engaged in the important work that we do each day.
David Kennedy
Acting Assistant Administrator
10f3
9/27/20102:01 PM
008583
I'<V;:)
WeeKJY - May.;), ":UIV
i On the NOS Web Site: Tune in to the latest Making Waves podcast for information about oil spill response
efforts in the Gulfof Mexico. We also bring you NOS news highlights from around the nation.
Here's a look at what's happening around NOS...
New Mosquito Control Poses Risk to Coastal Shrimp (NCCOS)
In an upcoming issue of Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, researchers from NOAA's
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science will publish their findings that the insecticide etofenprox is toxic to
grass shrimp commonly found in coastal estuaries along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. The insecticide is gaining
popularity as an active ingredient for the control of adult mosquitoes because it is touted as one of the safer
products to use around people and pets. In laboratory tests, however, grass shrimp exposed to etofenprox in
concentrations similar to those likely to be found in the aquatic environment experienced cellular stress and
reduced survival rates. Shrimp and many other coastal invertebrates are similar to insects, so it stands to
reason that insecticides will do them harm. The key lies in discovering thresholds at which various pesticides in
our waters become too toxic for the species that make their homes there. NOAA's work may help the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and resource managers assess the risk of using the compound in coastal
areas. For more information, contact Marie Delorenzo.
Five Tide Stations Installed in Maine and Massachusetts for VDatum Program (CO-OPS, NGS, OCS)
The Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS) recently installed five tide stations
for the NOS VDatum program in Maine and Massachusetts. These short-term tide stations will collect
continuous, valid data for 90 days, and then CO-OPS will determine the tidal datums. VDatum is a software
tool developed by NOS for transforming bathymetric/topographic data among 28 vertical datums. The ability to
properly reference data to multiple vertical datums is critical to a variety of applications in the coastal areas.
Some other applications that benefit from VDatum include inundation modeling (storm surge, tsunami, and
sea-level rise impacts), ecosystem modeling, and coastal zone management. CO-OPS, the National Geodetic
Survey, and the Office of Coast Survey actively support and maintain the NOS VDatum Program. NOS will
develop a VDatum model for Maine and Massachusetts in fiscal year 2011 that will allow seamless data products
across the land-water interface. For more information, contact !.:.J.l=!J..!.!<:.I---"'-".!..!.'-".!JlJ,'
NOAA IOOS and Partners Develop Next Steps for Protecting Water Quality (IOOS)
>From April 25-29, more than 750 people from several federal agencies and other partners of the U.S.
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) attended the seventh National Water Quality Monitoring
Conference in Denver, Colorado. The National Water Quality Monitoring Council, managed largely by the
EnVironmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), hosted a session titled "National
monitoring network: monitoring water quality from inland to coastal ecosystems." Presenters highlighted the
outcomes of the IOOS regional and interagency water quality workshop, including a proposal to develop a test
project for the National Monitoring Network. The USGS, EPA, NOAA, state and regional partners, the academiC
community, and the private sector all partiCipated. The conference covered numerous elements of both water
quality and water quantity monitoring for better understanding, protection, and restoration of natural resources
and communities and provided an opportunity to look for new areas for collaboration. For more information,
contact !..>"'-~""-"'~~.
NOS Participates at the International Seabed Authority 16th Session (IPO)
>From April 26 - May 7, the NOS International Program Office Is participating as part of the U.S. Delegation at
the 16th Session of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in Kingston, Jamaica. The ISA was created by the
Convention on the Law of the Sea to manage and regulate mining activities in the seabed in areas beyond
national jurisdiction. NOAA provides input on positions and policy relating to deep seabed mining to the U.S.
Delegation, an Interagency group led by the Department of State. This year's ISA Session will begin review of
regulations on mining activities for cobalt-rich crusts. Cobalt-rich crusts are found on seamounts throughout the
global ocean and may be co-located with biodiverse marine ecosystems such as those containing cold-water
corats. NOAA is working to ensure that these deep-sea environments are properly protected in areas beyond
national jurisdiction. For more information, contact Steve Morrison.
Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee Meets (OCRM)
The Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Federal Advisory Committee (FAC), which advises NOAA and the Department
of the Interior on the implementation of the national system of marine protected areas, met April 20-22 In
Charleston, South Carolina. At the meeting, the Committee adopted recommendations on how the national
system of MPAs and MPAs In general can contribute to more resilient ecosystems in light of expected climate
change impacts in the ocean. The MPA FAC also adopted a vision statement for the cultural heritage goal of the
national system and heard from two panels of MPA experts and stakeholders on South AtlantiC regional issues
and the value and diversity of cultural heritage resources. The meeting was a transitional one for 14 outgoing
members and 14 prospective members who will soon be formally appOinted. Members of the newly formed
20f3
9/27/2010 2:01 PM
008584
J~V"
WtltlKly' lVlaY .:l,
":u J v
Cultural Heritage Resources Working Group also attended and contributed additional expertise on
archaeological and tribal issues. Visit the MPA Center Web site for meeting reports, including panel
presentations. For more information, contact Lauren Wenzel.
Hawaii State Land Board Approves Monument Permits (ONMS)
After initially deferring action recently, the seven member Hawai'i State Land Board voted unanimously to
approve eight permits (one was withdrawn by the applicant) sought for research or educational purposes in
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. The action happened after Monument permit and research
coordinators for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources presented
"declaration of exemption memos" for indusion in permit submittals. The exemptions provide exceptions from
having to conduct individual environmental assessments for permit activities in the Monument. State permit
coordinators now plan to include the declarations of exemptions with all permit submittals to the land board,
which can approve or deny activities happening in state waters in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The
coordinators told the land board that permit coordinators from all Monument co-trustee agencies work closely
together and look at best management practices when considering applications. The coordinators also presented
an analysis of human impacts from diving and research collection in Papahanaumokuakea. For more
information, contact Randall Kosaki.
( } NOS is on Facebook ... check it out.
30f3
9/27/2010 2:01 PM
008585
UUll 1 ~<tg\:uy
upuaws
Subject: Gulf Tragedy Updates

Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 12:57:20 -0400 (EOl)
To: Mark:W.Miller@noaa.gov

Update #2 on Gulf Oil Spill Disaster
stream and rocks
May 3rd, 2010
Update #2 from CWN Members & Partners about

the unprecedented environmental disaster on the Gulf Coast
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
In addition to the recent update (below) from Mobile Baykeeper on the Gulf oil spill,
forwarded by our partners in the Tri-State Conservation Coalition, we are also forwarding
some of the recent video clips that include interviews with CWN members.
10f4
9/27/20102:01 PM
008586
UUIl I ragcuy UpUalCS
Natalie Roy
Clean Water Network
Link to recent video reports:

Gulf Restoration Network Executive Director Cyn Sarthou on the Cobert Report:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/30810O/april-29-2010/wind-farm--oil-spill
Link to CNN news segment with Casi Callaway, Mobile Baykeeper Executive Director:
-http://www.cnn.com/videol#lvideo/us/2010/05/01
Iholmes.seafood.oil.damage.intv.cnn?iref=allsearch
Link to Gulf Restoration Network Blog with active updates and information:
http://www.healthygulf.org/blog/bp-s-oil-drilling-disaster-in-the-guif-of-mexicol
Link to Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper website:
http://lmrk.orgllower-mississippi-river-issues/bps-deep-water-drilling-disasterl
Forwarded message from Mobile Baykeeper:

Friends, I am sure you are all aware by now that we are facing a crisis of unknown proportions.
We are working to create some what's up fact sheets, how to do something guides while also
working to learn what we didn't know anything about just 3 days ago.
I wanted to give everyone an update on where we're putting our energy and let you know that we
need all the support and ideas you can give.
First if you are interested in volunteering send an email to info@mobilebaykeeper.org or call
251-433-4229.
The simple update is that more than 5,000 barrels (210k gallons) per day are gushing out of a hole
more than a mile down on the Gulf floor. There is no way to stop the gushing any time soon, so no
matter what, we will see massive problems for quite some time. We're just still unsure exactly
what they will be.
We are working to collect and then coordinate volunteers. With or without help from our Unified
Command folks, we have 100s of people who want to help, our phones are ringing off the hook and
we need in the office help TODAY! We are also working to coordinate efforts to get boom out in
our critical fisheries habitat. Organizing that is a massive, but critical effort. We also just learned
that folks can start NOW by cleaning trash and debris out of wetland areas (NOT PLANTS).
We are setting our sites on a few "demands":
1)
More Resources NOW - we need more support, more money, more and better clean up.
2)
Caution - ideas are being bantered around like crazy. We need every one of them to be
completely vetted, thoroughly reviewed and studied for impacts to health, environmental and our
economy.
3)
Monitoring - Every medium and every pollutant mustbe monitored thoroughly and extensively.
4)
Transparency - The public must be allowed to get involved and the data must be presented in
completion to the public now.
2of4
9/27/2010 2:01 PM
008587
UUIl I
ragt::uy UpUaltlli
5}
Give the 1ODs of community volunteers work to do right now! It is critical that we do not wait
to use the resources available. Volunteers need to be trained well and put to use as quickly as
possible.
We have just been effectively added to Unified Command and I will be headed to Waveland
Mississippi to meet with Administrator Jackson at 2:30 central.
This oil release is Northern Gulf Wide. It will go make landings from Louisiana to Florida starting
today (expected landfall starting today - LA, Saturday -- MS/AL, Sunday -- AUFL, Monday - FL).
We need to speak LOUDLY with a unified voice and we're hopeful these guys can help us do that.
Again, If you are interested in volunteering or know anyone who is, please email us name, contact
info and skills/support/equipment at info@mobilebaykeeper.org.
We are working to process and include everything. Any ideas for grants or other funding resources
would be greatly appreCiated. We didn't exactly budget to work on oil and gas.
Casi (kc) Callaway
Executive Director & Baykeeper
Mobile Baykeeper
300 Dauphin Street, Suite 200
Mobile, Alabama 36602
Network Dues Todayl
Capitol Hili and across the country. Now, with the oil spill in the Gulf of
water resources.
DONATE link below.
Clean Water Network
218 D Street SE
membership survey, available HERE. Thank you in advance for renewing your
30f4
9/27/20102:01 PM
008588
Natalie Roy
Executive Director
Clean Water Network
DONATE
0-$100,000
$100,000-$250,000
$250,000-$500,000
$500,000-$2 million
Over $2 mill ion
Dues
$60
$150
$300
$700
$900
Clean Water Network
218 D Street SE
202.547.4208
Forward email
. Safe Unsubscribe
This email wassenttomari<.w.miller@noaa.gov by cwnheadquarters@cwn.org.
Update ProfilelEmail Address I Instant removal with SafeUnsubscdbe I Privacy policy.
Clean Water Networi<
4of4
I 218
D St. SE
Email Mari<eting by
9/27/20102:01 PM
008589
\..JWI llab cuy upual.c
ttJ
Subject: Gulf Tragedy Update #3

Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 12:23:22 -0400 (EDn

stream and rocks
. May 4th, 2010
Small
New
Logo
Update #3 from Clean Water Network about

the Unprecedented Environmental Disaster in the Gulf
.. oilrig on fire
.---.----..- - - - - - . - - . - , - - - - - c : : - - - - - - - -
Tugboats attempting to extinguish the fire on the sinking Deepwater

Horizon oil rig off the coast of Louisiana
lof5
9/27/20102:01 PM
008590
'-lUll lli:lg.;UY upUtm: 1t.J
Several Congressional hearings have already been scheduled to examine the Gulf oil spill
disaster. The scheduled hearings are listed below and we will send additional information
on who will be testifying and on what specific topics when it becomes available. In this alert
we have also included links with updates from EPA & CWN member organizations.
If you have updates on activities your organization is involved in on tackling the oil spill
in the Gulf, please send them to CWN so we can share them with the whole Network.
Natalie Roy
Clean Water Network
Upcom ing Capitol Hill Hearings to investigate the Gulf Oil Spill:
1) Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
Full Committee Hearing to review current issues related to offshore oil and gas
development
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010,10:00 AM
Where: Energy Committee Hearing Room - 266 Dirksen Senate Office Building
The purpose of the hearing is to review current issues related to offshore oil and gas
development including the Department of Interior's recent five year planning
announcements and the accident in the Gulf of Mexico involving the offshore oil rig
Deepwater Horizon.
2) House Energy and Commerce Committee:

Hearing on Deepwater Horizon Rig Oil Spill
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 10:00 am
Where: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building
3) House Natural Resources Committee:

Full Committee Oversight Hearing on the "Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Strategy and
Implications of the Deepwater Horizon Rig Explosion"
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 10:00 am
Where: Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building
The House Natural Resources Committee, led by Chairman Nick J Rahall (D-WV), will hold
an oversight hearing on the "Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Strategy and Implications
of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion.
EPA & CWN Member websites that include information, fact sheets, blogs
and press releases concerning the Gulf Oil Spill:
http://WWIN.epa,~ovfbpspilll
http://WWIN,alabamarivers.orgfpress-roomfheadlines/al-com-oil-slick-moves-towardgulf-coast-leak -5-times-bigger-than-thought-with-video
http://WWIN,americanrivers.orR/newsroomfpress-releases/201O/gulf-oil-spill-tragedv5-3-2010.html
http://switchboard.nrdc.or~/blo~s/schasis/nrdccallsforatimeoutonne.html
20f5
9127/20102:01 PM
008591
http://www.nwf.orf;l/wildlifelwildlife-conservation/threats-t-wildlife/oil-spill.aspx
http://unearthed.earthiustice.or~/
HOT OF THE PRESS

Senators Nelson (D-FL), Menendez (D-NJ) and Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced legislation
yesterday that would raise the liability cap on oil companies from $75 million to $10 billion.
The Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act would help ensure oil companies aren't off the hook for
ruining coastal livelihoods - current law limits their post-cleanup responsibilities far below
expected damages of the Gulf spill.
Press Release from Senator Lautenberg (NJ) about recently introduced federal legislation:
http://lautenber!=l.senate.~ov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=324631&
The Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act would:

Raise the liability cap for offshore oil well spills from $75 million to $10 billion;
Eliminate the $1 billion per incident cap on claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund and allow community responders to access the fund for preparation and
mitigation up front, rather than waiting for reimbursement later;
If damages claims exceed the amount in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (currently
$1.6 billion), then claimants can collect from future revenues of the fund, with
interest; and
Eliminate the $500 million cap on natural resources damages.
Ask Gordon- CWN's Clean Water Advice Expert
Ask Gordon
Dear Gordon,
Where does the recent Gulf Oil Spill rank in size compared to other spills in
history? Why does it seem like the government and BP (British Petroleum)
officials are unable to solve this problem?
Alfonso
Biloxi, IVIS
Thanks for the great question. With oil continuing to spew out of the crumpled 5,000 foot pipe of
the sunken Deepwater Horizon oil rig, the spill is already among the largest in US history. So far, an
estimated 2.6 million gallons of oil, roughly 60,000 barrels, has spilled into the Gulf of Mexico,
forming a slick larger than Delaware. If the oil continues to seep into the Gulf at this rate, this spill
could easily overtake the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound as the largest oil spill
in US history.
There are a few possible reasons why the response to the spill has been slower and less effective
than all of us would like. For one, BP simply didn't think anything like this could happen. In a 2009
document filed with the federal Minerals Management Service in response to questions about off
shore drilling operations, BP stated it was "unlikely that an accident surface or subsurface oil spill
would occur from the proposed activities." While they acknowledged that any spill would impact
beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, BP argued that "due to the distance to shore (48
miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are
expected." Their response efforts have clearly shown to be less than capable, which suggests they
made no contingency plans for the worst case scenario, which this clearly has turned into.
30f5
9/27/20102:01 PM
008592
Additionally, one of the main methods proposed for fixing this situation is "in-situ burns" to burn oil
off the surface of the water. There has been little success with this method for a number of
reasons, but far more disturbing is their reliance on this tactic despite the fact that neither BP or
government clean-up teams actually owned a single fire boom. According to a recent article in the
Mobile Press-Register, the government had long-standing plans to utilize this method for Gulf Coast
oil spills, yet never bothered to purchase any fire booms. In the end, it seems that both the US
government and BP had some understanding of the risks involved, but didn't take proper
precautions to ensure they could deal with a disaster of this proportion.
Network Dues Todayl
Capitol Hill and across the country. Now, with the oil spill in the Gulf of
water resources.
DONATE link below.
Clean Water Network
218 D Street SE
membership survey, available HERE. Thank you in advance for renewing your.
Natalie Roy
Executive Director
Clean Water Network
DONATE
0-$100,000
$100,000-$250,000
$250,000-$500,000
$500,000-$2 million
40f5
Dues
$60
$150
$300
$700
9/27/20102:01 PM
008593
\.lUll llU!;;I;:UY UPUl:u.t:
It.:>
Over $2 million
$900
Clean Water Network
218 D Street SE
Washington, DC 20003 .
202.547.4208
Forward email
safe Unsubscdbe
This email wassenttomark.w.miller@noaa.gov by cwnheadQIJarters@cwn org.
Update profilelEmail Address I Instant removal with safeUnsLJbscdbe I pdvaC poliC.
Clean Water Network
50f5
I 218
D St. SE
Email Marketing by
9/27/20102:01 PM
008594
Subject: Tell Congress to Fund EPA Fracking Study
From: Jennifer Peters <jenniferpeters@cwn.org>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 16:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
Small
New
Logo
Clean Water Network Newsletter
May 5, 2010
Greetings!
C' Fracking
Our friends at Citizens Campaign for the Environment and

Colorado Watershed Assembly have asked us to circulate
this sign-on letter, which urges Congress to fully fund
the President's FY11 budget request of $4.3 million for
the EPA to continue its study on the relationship between
hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. In March the EPA
announced it was launching a $1.8 million study
beginning this fiscal year to examine the impact of
hydraulic fracturing on water resources. The additional
funding requested by the President will help ensure that EPA can conduct a robust
and transparent study with more public participation.
<
If you would like to sign on to this letter, please contact Sarah Eckel, CCE
Policy Analyst, seckel@citizenscampaign.org. The deadline to sign on is
Wednesday, May 12, 2010.
lof2
What is Hydraulic
Fracturing?
Join Our Oil, Gas, Ie. Mining

List Serve!
Hydraulic fracturing (commonly

known as fracking) is the process of
extracting oil or gas trapped in tiny
bubbles of shale (tight sands) by
ejecting a mixture of water and toxic
chemicals under high pressure
underground. Chemicals commonly
used in this practice include benzene,
toluene, and pesticides. Currently
CWN recently launched an Oil, Gas, &

Mining List Serve for members to share
information about the increasing threat
our waters face from oil and gas drilling
and mining activities. CWN members
have become especially concerned
about the impact increased natural gas
drilling may have on drinking water
supplies in New York, Pennsylvania, and
9/27/20102:01 PM
008595
, ..... \..-VU!9
,,~~
lU . UlIU
nr.t\ r
nl~JI.1l1g
.:>LUUY
EPA does not regulate the injecting

of fracking fluids, because the 2001
Energy Policy Act granted the practice
exemption from most environmental
laws, including the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Even worse, the industry considers
the composition of fracking fluids to
be a "trade secret" and is reluctant
to disclose what chemicals they are
using. Last year, Congress introduced
the Fracturing Responsibility and
Awareness of Chemicals Act, or FRAC
Act. This bill would require companies
to disclose the identity of chemicals
used in fracking fluids. This bill would
also remove the industry's exemption
from regulation under the federal
SDWA.
Colorado, among other states. If you

would like to be added to our Oil,
Gas Ie. Mining list serve, please
i
II
~e~m~a~i~1~a~o~r~d~o~n~c~u~lv~e~r@~c~w~n~.o~r~g~.====~i
CWN Comments on Proposed
EPA Fracking Study
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)
held a public meeting last month to
discuss its Scoping Materials for the
Initial Design of EPA Research
Study on Potential Relationships
Between Hydraulic Fracturing and
Drinking Water Resources. CWN
i submitted written comments on the
proposed study and CWN staff give a
short oral presentation at the April
7th meeting.
II
The EPA SAB expects to have their

draft recommendations available for
public review later this month. Their
next public meeting is scheduled for
June 15, 2010, in Washington, DC.
Thank you for everything you do for our nation's precious water resources!
Sincerely,
Natalie Roy
Executive Director
Clean Water Network
P.S. This spring, please consider giving the gift of clean water by
donating to the Clean Water Network.
Forward emaU
Safe Unsubscribe
This email wassenttomark.w.mlller@noaa.gov by jennjferpeters@cwn.org.
Update Profile{Emaii Address I Instant removal with SafeUnsubscObe I POyacy poljcy.
Clean Water Network
20f2
I 218
D St. SE
Email Marketing by
E
. . .: :
L.. ~':
9/27120102:01 PM
008596
ut::t"J.lwulI::r nonwn IDI.:!aem-J:juageTl LOgIStICSI AOlnlmstratlVe lntonn .
Subject: Deepwater Horizon Incident-Budget!Logisticsl Administrative Information

From: LaTonya Burgess <LaTonya.Burgess@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 06 May 201020:56:47 -0400
To: _NOS ORR All <nos.orr.all@noaa.gov>
ORR,
I know are all busy but I thought I would resend this message since timesheets need to be
completed tomorrow.
Here is some important information you may need to know if you are involved in the
Deepwater Horizon Incident.
;
1) What Project Code should I use for T&A, Travel and Supplies etc?
Direct Costs:
17K3NQS POO is the project code for ERD staff providing direct support to the incident
(Emergency Response)
17K3EM6 POO is the project code for ARD staff providing direct support to the (NRDA
activities)
Indirect Costs (training. outreach, media):
HSK3RDW POO is the project code for SSG, HQ and ARD
HSK3NDW POO is the project code for ERD
HSK3RDH POO is the project code for Marine Debris
Note: The indirect costs projects codes will be available in WebTA by noon tomorrow.
2) Who should I contact for T&A, Travel and Procurement support?
Your normal
poe for Travel & T&A and
Procurement! support.
Travel
Denise- (HO. BSG East. MDD, ERD East)
Jessica- (BSG West. ARD SW)
Gwen-(ARD East)
Thelma-(ARD West, ERD West)
DOlores-(ARD SE)
T&A
Jessica-(SSG West, ARD West, ERD West)
Gwen-(HO, MDD, SSG East, ARD East, ERD East)
Procu rement!Purchasing
John Kaperick and Karl Mueller (Information Technology, ERD)
lof2
9/27/201 0 2:01PM
008597
ueepwarer HOriZOn IllCluem-ouugeltLOgJStlCSI fl.urrnruslfl1LlVI: 1l1lOfm...
Donna Lawson (MDD)

Donna Roberts (ARD)
Terri Lewis (BSG, HQ, ERD)
3) How should I record my time outside of my normal work hours?

Overtime-for those who are providing direct support of the incident
Comp Time or Credit Hours-for those who are providing indirect support (this should be
approved in advance)
NOTE: ERD please follow Mark Dix's e-mail dated 4/29/10
Comp Time 80 hour limit- Heads of operating units or their designees may grant exception
from the maximum earnings limitation, for employees performing work directly connected
with resolving or coping with an emergency or its aftermath. "Emergency" is defined as a
temporary condition posing a direct threat to human life and property, e.g. natural disasters,
such as hurricanes, tornadoes, 'floods, forest 'fires, etc. The oil spill is definitely an
"Emergency" so exceptions can be granted. Employees should alert their supervisors if
they need to exceed the 80 hours.
4} Is there anything else I should be aware of?
Note: Keep in mind if we purchase any accountable property and charge it to the
reimbursable project code, when this is all said and done it becomes property of the
responsible party.
Feel free to contact any BSG Manager or Budget
poe if you have additional questions.
Thanks
LaTonya
LaTonya Burgess
Business Services Group, Chief
Office of Response and Restoration
20f2
9127/20]02:0] PM
008598
Ullii
trageay upaate 11:l
Subject: Gulf Tragedy Update #5

Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 13:10: 12 -0400 (EDT)

stream and rocks
May 7th, 2010
Update #5 from Clean Water Network about the Unprecedented

Environmental Disaster in the Gulf
Burning Water
According to news reports, BP's custom made four-story containment dome has arrived at the oil
spill site in the Gulf of Mexico and is slowly being lowered to the bottom. Officials hope this
container will collect the oil leaking out of the pipe so they can then suck the oil up to a ship on the
.surface. If this first operation goes well, BP plans to launch a second, smaller dome to deal with
the smallest of the two remaining leaks. While BP is cautiously optimistic this will work, the
lof4
9/27/20102:01 PM
008599
uUIT I rageay upaate "'.)
technique has never been attempted in such deep waters so it will take several days to complete
the process and they will undoubtedly face a number of unforeseen challenges. With oil already
washing ashore on Louisiana's barrier island, it is imperative that greater strides are made in
stopping this spill.
BP announced early Wednesday that it had stopped the flow of oil from one of the three existing
leak points in the sunken rig. In addition, BP used two specially equipped "burn rigs" to set fire to
patches of crude oil near the ruptured undersea well. Their intention was to burn some of the oil in
the area of the slick that is the thickest. Thousands of volunteers, wildlife officials and idled
fishermen have also been mobilized in the relief effort and employed with stringing floating booms
along the beaches and across the mouths of estuaries leading toward the gulf.
As of May 6th, Congress had scheduled seven hearings to discuss the oil spill in the Gulf. You can
view a complete list of scheduled hearings on our website.
Natalie Roy
Clean Water Network
News From Florida

Franklin County officials and representatives from the seafood and tourism industry held an
emergency meeting Wednesday to review plans and make recommendations to protect the
county's shoreline. The plan focuses on the use of booms that are designed to keep oil from flowing
into Apalachicola Bay and onshore. In addition to formulating these plans, oystermen, fishermen
and others that make their living from the Gulf met at the county's Emergency Operations Center to
get training in deploying the booms. The booms will not be deployed until the oil slick approaches
the area. Read the whole story "e;:;i.;'. Thanks to our friends at the Tri-state Conservation Coalition
for this update.
EPA and CWN Member Websites that include information, fact sheets,
blogs and press releases concerning the Gulf Oil Spill:
[Gulf Restoration Network's dedicated website on the spill]
Legislation Announced to Hold Oil Companies Fully Accountable for Spills

Senator Menendez (D-NJ) introduced two important pieces of legislation earlier this week, the Big
Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010 (S. 3305) and the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Trust Fund
Act of 2010 (S. 3306); both bills would require oil companies to pay for the full cost of oil spills.
U.S. Representative Rush Holt (NJ-12) introduced similar legislation (H.R. 5214) in the House on
2of4
9/27/2010 2:01 PM
008600
UultTragedy Update #5
Wednesday.
,
Birds with Booms in the Background
Public Input Sought on the Inter-Agency Climate Change

Adaptation Task Force: Interim Progress Report
The Inter-agency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force is developing Federal recommendations
for adapting to climate change impacts both domestically and internationally. The final
recommendations are due in October 2010 and the Task Force is seeking public input. On March
16,2010, the Task Force released an Interim Progress Report which outlines the Task Force's
progress to date and recommends key components to include in a national strategy on climate
change adaptation decisions and policy; communications and capacity-building; coordination and
collaboration; prioritization; a flexible framework for agencies; and evaluation.
The Interim Progress Report is available for public comment until May 17, 2010. To read the
Progress Report and to submit comments, visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration
/ eop/ceq/in itiatives/adaptation
Give the Gift of Clean Water: Renew Your 2010

Clean Water Network Dues Today
While you continue working on important environmental protection efforts on behalf of your
organization and community, please remember the Clean Water Network. It is critical this year
that EVERY Clean Water Network (CWN) member renew their dues to help us continue our
important work on Capitol Hill and across the country. Now, with the oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico poised to become the largest in US history, it is imperative that the clean water
community continue to work together to protect our precious water resources.
DONATE link.
You can also mail a check to:

Clean Water Network
218 D Street SE
Dues are set by a sliding scale determined by your organization's budget. The chart is posted
below. We are also requesting that all CWN members fill out a membership survey, available here.
30f4
9/27/2010 2:01 PM
008601
GulfTragedy Update 1f5
Thank you in advance for renewing your support and for completing the member survey. Most
importantly, thank you for everything you do to protect our nation's waters.
Natalie Roy
Executive Director
Clean Water Network
DONATE
0-$100,000
$100,000-$250,000
$250,000-$500,000
$500,000-$2 million
Over $2 million
Dues
$60
$150
$300
$700
$900
Clean Water Network

218 D Street SE
202.547.4208
Forward email
Safe Unsubscribe
This email wassenttomark.w.miller@noaa.gov by cwnheadquarters@cwn.org.
Update profilelEmail Address I Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe I Privacy Policy.
Clean Water Network
40f4
I 218
D St. SE
Email Marketing by
[I
"""L
:.".~. -;
... "-.._"
-~
9/27/2010 2:01 PM
008602
LFwd: Uult'Tragedy Update #5J
Subject: [Fwd: Gulf Tragedy Update #5]

From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 07 May 201010:23:58 -0700
To: Mary Evans <Mary.Evans@noaa.gov>, Peter Murphy <Peter.Murphy@noaa.gov>, Doug
Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>
Do you see what looks like water streams coming from the right side of the in situ burn
picture? If that is water do they use that to herd the oil?
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Gulf Tragedy Update #5
Date:Fri, 07 May 201013:10:12 -0400 (EDT)
From:Clean Water Network <cwnheadquarters@cwn.org>
Reply-To:cwnheadq uarters@cwn.org
To:Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov

. stream
May 7th, 2010
Small
New
Logo
Update #5 'from Clean Water Network about the Unprecedented

Environmental Disaster in the Gulf
lof5
9/27/20102:01 PM
008603
LFwd: UultTragedy Update #5 j
Burning Water
According to news reports, BP's custom made four-story containment dome has arrived at the oil
spill site in the Gulf of Mexico and is slowly being lowered to the bottom. Officials hope this
container will collect the oil leaking out of the pipe so they can then suck the oil up to a ship on the
surface. If this first operation goes well, BP plans to launch a second, smaller dome to deal with
the smallest of the two remaining leaks. While BP is cautiously optimistic this will work, the
technique has never been attempted in such deep waters so it will take several days to complete
the process and they will undoubtedly face a number of unforeseen challenges. With oil already
washing ashore on Louisiana's barrier island, it is imperative that greater strides are made in
stopping this spill.
BP announced early Wednesday that it had stopped the flow of oil from one of the three existing
leak points in the sunken rig. In addition, BP used two specially equipped "burn rigs" to set fire to
patches of crude oil near the ruptured undersea well. Their intention was to burn some of the oil in
the area of the slick that is the thickest. Thousands of volunteers, wildlife officials and idled
fishermen have also been mobilized in the relief effort and employed with stringing floating booms
along the beaches and across the mouths of estuaries leading toward the gulf.
As of May 6th, Congress had scheduled seven hearings to discuss the oil spill in the Gulf. You can
view a complete list of scheduled hearings on our website.
Natalie Roy
Clean Water Network
News From Florida

Franklin County officials and representatives from the seafood and tourism industry held an
emergency meeting Wednesday to review plans and make recommendations to protect the
county's shoreline. The plan focuses on the use of booms that are designed to keep oil from flowing
into Apalachicola Bay and onshore. In addition to formulating these plans, oystermen, fishermen
and others that make their living from the Gulf met at the county's Emergency Operations Center to
get training in deploying the booms. The booms will not be deployed until the oil slick approaches
the area. Read the whole story
". Thanks to our friends at the Tri-state Conservation Coalition
for this update.
EPA and CWN Member Websites that include information, fact sheets,
20fS
9/27/20102:01 PM
008604
LFwd: UuItTragedy Update #5j
blogs and press releases concerning the Gulf Oil Spill:

[Gulf Restoration Network's dedicated website on the spill]

Senator Menendez (D-NJ) introduced two important pieces of legislation earlier this week, the Big
Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010 (S. 3305) and the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Trust Fund
Act of 2010 (S. 3306); both bills would require oil companies to pay for the full cost of oil spills.
U.S. Representative Rush Holt (NJ-12) introduced similar legislation (H.R. 5214) in the House on
Wednesday.
Birds with Booms in the Background
Public Input Sought on the Inter-Agency Climate Change

Adaptation Task Force: Interim Progress Report
The Inter-agency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force is developing Federal recommendations
for adapting to climate change impacts both domestically and internationally. The final
recommendations are due in October 2010 and the Task Force is seeking public input. On March
16,2010, the Task Force released an Interim Progress Report which outlines the Task Force's
progress to date and recommends key components to include in a national strategy on climate
change adaptation decisions and policy; communications and capacity-building; coordination and
collaboration; prioritization; a flexible framework for agencies; and evaluation.
The Interim Progress Report is available for public comment until May 17, 2010. To read the
Progress Report and to submit comments, visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration
30f5
9127/20102:01 PM
008605
lPwd: Gulf Tragedy Update #5J
leop/ceq/initiatives/adaptation
Give the Gift of Clean Water: Renew Your 2010

Clean Water Network Dues Today
While you continue working on important environmental protection efforts on behalf of your
organization and community, please remember the Clean Water Network. It is critical this year
that EVERY Clean Water Network (CWN) member renew their dues to help us continue our
important work on Capitol HIli and across the country. Now, with the oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico poised to become the largest in US history, it is imperative that the clean water
community continue to work together to protect our precious water resources.
DONATE link.

Clean Water Network
218 D Street SE
Dues are set by a sliding scale determined by your organization's budget. The chart is posted
below. We are also requesting that all CWN members fill out a membership survey, available here.
Thank you in advance for renewing your support and for completing the member survey. Most
importantly, thank you for everything you do to protect our nation's waters.
Natalie Roy
Executive Director
Clean Water Network
DONATE
0~$100,OOO
$100,000-$250,000
$250,000-$500,000
$500,000-$2 million
Over $2 million
Dues
$60
$150
$300
$700
$900
Clean Water Network

218 D Street SE
202.547.4208
www.cleanwaternetwork.or~
Forward email
Safe Unsubscribe
This email was sent to mark.w.mjller@lnoaa.goy by cwnheadQuarters@cwn.oro.
Update profilelEmail Address I Instant removal with SafeUnsubsClibe I privacy Policy.
4 of5
9/27/2010 2:0] PM
008606
lrWd: tiult Tragedy Update ff) J
Clean Water Network
50f5
I 218
D St. SE
9127/2010 2:01 PM
008607
Ke: It'Wd: UUlt Tragedy Update IJ'JJ
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gulf Tragedy Update #5]

From: Mary Evans <Mary.Evans@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 10:57:49 -0700
To: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: Peter Murphy <Peter.Murphy@noaa.gov>, Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>
Hi, Mark--I just picked Doug's brain. We've heard nothing definite but will keep an eye out. Doug's thought
was that the water spray might be for the purpose of cooling the boom, especially if non-fire boom is being
used, for example, for closing off the U.
Mary
Mark.W.Miller wrote:
Iiwater
Do you see what looks like water streams
do they use that to herd the oil?
Ii Mark
coming from the right side of the in situ burn picture? If that is
II~~;~~~~ Orig~~~~ ~~:~:~~ ~~~~~~-;5
Date:
Fri, 07 May 2010 13:10:12 -0400 (EDT)
From:
Clean Water Network <cwnheadguarters@cwn.org>
Reply-To:
cwnheadguarters@cwn.org
To:
Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
Clean Water Network News ALERT Update *5 on Gulf Oil Spill Disaster
stream and rocks
Small New Logo
May 7th, 20101'
'I
update *5 from Clean Water Network about the Unprecedented Environmental Disaster in the Gulf
Burning Water
According to news reports, BP's custom made four-story containment dome has arrived at the oil spill site
in the Gulf of Mexico and is slowly being lowered to the bottom. Officials hope this container will collect
the oil leaking out of the pipe so they can then suck the oil up to a ship on the surface. If this first
operation goes well, BP plans to launch a second, smaller dome to deal with the smallest of the two
remaining leaks. While BP is cautiously optimistic this will work, the technique has never been attempted
in such deep waters so it will take several days to complete the process and they will undoubtedly face a
; number of unforeseen challenges. With oil already washing ashore on Louisiana's barrier island, it is
i imperative that greater strides are made in stopping this spill.
BP announced early Wednesday that it had stopped the flow of oil from one of the three existing leak points
in the sunken rig. In addition, BP used two specially equipped "burn rigs" to set fire to patches of crude
oil near the ruptured undersea well. Their intention was to burn some of the oil in the area of the slick
I that is the thickest. Thousands of volunteers, wildlife officials and idled fishermen have also been
mobilized in the relief effort and employed with stringing floating booms along the beaches and across the
mouths of estuaries leading toward the gulf.
"
As of May 6th, Congress had scheduled seven hearings to discuss the oil spill in the Gulf. You can view a
complete list of scheduled hearings on our website <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=ll03368625057&s=l354&
e=00lYSMIRZvrEcWQpjpEiUfpIQwcYZEY2vmPFVOhbbew9dn4ATn0p500tPNKlBICVnvUah29NFRR3QsUoWFMOpXPnTC3E040aom4dqERtHuj9gFLhKuSvwcuj3-mVtYaoQlFwJOHZxrXcpHxpV3BtpSIDDwFC x7IKdB2SCHwTp6MddfzeKpifQk6gVN98-a3tbDV3UhUH17i3BNQxDDBfcGLu23ZnzS7W>.
Natalie Roy
Clean Water Network
News From Florida
Franklin County officials and representatives from the seafood and tourism industry held an emergency
meeting Wednesday to review plans and make recommendations to protect the county's shoreline. The plan
focuses on the use of booms that are designed to keep oil from flowing into Apalachicola Bay and onshore.
In addition to formulating these plans, oystermen, fish'ermen and others that make their living from the
Gulf met at the county's Emergency Operations Center to get training in deploying the booms. The booms will
not be deployed until the oil slick approaches the area. Read the whole story here
<http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20l00506/NEWSOl/5060321/Updated-Apalachicola-workers-are-learninqto-deploy-booms>. Thanks to our friends at the Tri-state Conservation Coalition for this update.
EPA and CWN Member Websites that include information, fact sheets, blogs and press releases concerning the
Gulf oil Spill:
10f3
9/27/2010 2:01 PM
008608
Ke: lI<W(\: UWt J ragedy update tf') J
http://bpdrillingdisaster.org <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=110336S625057&s=1354&
e-001YsMIRZvrEcWYijxgK9GPF5dlnSN55fV6V9c6 OmzBrlE6LykJJOOCUcn99rpthMlzxUwaSp4vvRsSgmy2njW-cX9R5xyBoEOIy3DpbiOlp RXJwvanUkQHNp9VHIDll> [Gulf Restoration Network's dedicated website on the spill)
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/ <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103368625057&s=1354&e=0OIYsMIRZvrEcVJWpLm7mgjkxgHjjVXWdr9Sg9-2MVallHQh7w9flQ4eQBLZF4ioh7YJLlHl-jroLCV99ltIiPbQJUK8gJXicerIdJ9TIlYIKU4RQmWG3jvw==>
http://www.alabamarivers.org/press-room/headlines/alabama-coastal-foundation-oil-release-update
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103368625057&s=1354&e=0OlYSMIRZvrEcVCQSpGcyCYPI SL6mktG7vPGYCx2iv15hawoXW6g3N xOdaslcvJvAF7XftbhMTOZoVIKNBgyI BVrPpDIZPWEeWEFrnzjgBhm. IsecQVi6ScQGS-2Zvc VaVwpaYls6XAscKcUh elpe 019mbsZYILyaEILXsyOie4ZZUOJpOT9FUJyN57c6L60MZQxQ tlfH8zFZv7c4sA==>
http://www.americanrivers.org/newsroom/press-releases/2010/gulf-oil-spill-tragedy-5-3-20l0.html
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et-ll03368625057&s-1354&e-001YsMlRZvrEcUZSooCMVpR5VVEgvlZp4Kv7CX6m tg-u99 mQOrtHMy7Ns-T-ghgijLjW3bDNLcSrUr6iaK6AKMVOeE- -SzCzLjBoPymBsRNjw j2 AjjtllTTlwykrk3J55urc6F5mJJvGX bWgIHZlypYA18ywLCgF7JGcIaSVQfpDgdyYqRNJEOSAOCsOOEyQwt3usiPkd64G45D A==>
http://Switchboard.nrdc.org/blo9s/schasis/nrdc calls for a timeout on ne.html <http://r20.rs6.net
/tn.jsp?et=1103368625057&s=1354&e=001YsMIRZvrEcWvuXbr47V6oEdOS41CVzzkkR5CF-JutOFw YQV-DelwZ5fQHKU6CvF9Rh3j7zwzy55MyFgzZSX790mI6Jc243gt2E-tP36uPm6DykaQv55R9J lWkbSgMtcIQEwetIThdsAY-XErzBaqalosLHlhUI gT9WsIKODQFmX62by83hTfjnx92t5v>
I
I
II
http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/threats-t-wildlife/oil-spill.aspx <http://r20.rs6.net
/tn.jsp?et-ll0336S625057&s-1354&e-00lYsMlRZvrEcWlI9QaphMtkDU9HkAcmlSaTGgv2650acNfKInjralmxkW4TBLz3mXNNhYoflQS-YVDr3W QJf60m3LFVIX-Tg32aRTYTZvJtBTRZhES74HxEBgrAaFpHNILPcxOpyFiXkh190lmpyElr03dsxrKaZ5gsCHE-rx7-Hv4BH-etwtI7ec81s3walP8XdPvWkHA=>
I http://unearthed . earthj ustice. org/
! e-OOlYsMlRZvrEcUrXldS-
<http://r20 . rs6. net/tn. j sp?et=1l03368 625057 &s=1354 &
! O'VS ZtiK NBC5nMDboL 3Y cdWzD49AfDEDBxlvekaJ9IYCR fELDxxbz6s6XTrgeei S3AYma
Ot aeaRlmS51htVLt

I Senator Menendez (D-NJ) introduced two important pieces of legislation earlier this week, the Big Oil
Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010 (S. 3305 <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=110336S625057&s=1354&
e=001YsMIRZvrEcWWl-bOwigSosKbFdGCb5DmGO P3zIDKtR6EdFy5g3gF64 DRBOhSvMCSRlAOJoILXuOCAuSHNsI7YAvYO 6AkwkHCIslvJpguiwyxllnJC3g4KF-fJ3WxSpTySCpcZzCzSs2PJ9VSNMDPNsW5PAHztFwYknoIU9BkIRDGy7UCIKDGDxhYgPe IBOj4VQaPgBYOwp9jgkdnltxJga05Sd and the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Trust Fund Act of 2010 (S. 3306
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et-ll0336S625057&s=1354&
e-00lYsMIRZvrEcUjvT5DF3DNESDArUhfLbKgP5zIIZiaSGNrpiJ5vvXJ2l-bg4oiQPlvBzSXfCnQUouSZAp-D5R4hCSuXOV;38Tdw3JSgEDJB3KQavaWzlf3r6bLgxrUNzmMPv6Ly3Q30REwAXFQvclJh2bMk4lgrY VjgogSjvpesKKSBSNKcacazgzyzNOjb7Gj2NAdz6ZDEmJjKtOjbakkxz-NWBgQ4; both bills would require oil companies to pay for the full cost of oil spills.
i U.S. Representative Rush Holt (NJ-12) introduced similar legislation (H.R. 5214 <http://r20.rs6.net
I /tn.jsp?et=110336S625057&s=1354&e=001YsMIRZvrEcVROPOnkBObdFDNMZlwgPwvyJzj3cXuY503MatDYXA-XYwAgenYKQgYj3cVrmAfboM8TTaN19uAgTz-dHSFU3n0130gNpOY6lm4cnPexGAB7ybPmsygUsZc kAMITKr5b7 NGNRBhXb3RVxslEf46gS[ hLgmtlLOFOZ3LRKS 3TEUWWSJlhleWIAwHi3PLkSGkJenRKTd2cNpnaiV3VXTP in the House on Wednesday.
i Birds
with Booms in the Background
. Input Sought on the Inter-Agency Cl'1mate Ch ange Ad aptat10n

'k
'
II Pub11c
Tas Force: Inter1m
Progress Report
The Inter-agency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force is developing Federal recommendations for adapting to
climate change impacts both domestically and internationally. The final recommendations are due in October
2010 and the Task Force is seeking public input. On March 16, 2010, the Task Force released an Interim
Progress Report which outlines the Task Force's progress to date and recommends key components to include
in a national strategy on climate change adaptation decisions and policy; communications and capacitybuilding; coordination and collaboration; prioritization; a flexible framework for agencies; and
evaluation.
The Interim Progress Report is available for public comment until May 17, 2010. To read the Progress Report
and to submit comments, visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceg/initiatives/adaptation
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=110336S625057&s=1354&e=001YsMIRZvrEcVBPPSV8fdSrjzGpjvP54AgcACyfuyfn4cM4PUUUKFVFg252Keliydx02NRwyMm 3sNKKb9SsIe2WUbZC2GEHjN5SYuQPJITLyb3rQaOFPIFIZFSwerhJLUDk3KR-TSS6pFLIOphedhDg3xF2dGOgiuShFTL6C32rXLaFp7LbHDYdP9TDAR3v>
Give the Gift of Clean Water: Renew Your 2010 Clean Water Network Dues Today
While you continue working on important environmental protection efforts on behalf of your organization and
community, please remember the Clean Water Network. It is critical this year that EVERY Clean Water Network
(CWN) member renew their dues to help us continue our important work on Capitol Hill and across the .
country. Now, with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico poised to become the largest in US history, it is
imperative that the clean water community continue to work together to protect our precious water
I
I
resources.
Please renew your membership dues today online by clicking on the DONATE <https:/ /www.paypal.com/cgi-bin
/webscr?cmd= s-xclick&hosted button id=104l5346> link.
Clean Water Network
21S D Street SE
Dues are set by a sliding scale determined by your organization's budget. The chart is posted below. We are
also requesting that all CWN members fill out a membership survey, available here. Thank you in advance for
renewing your support and for completing the member survey. Most importantly, thank you for everything you
20f3
9/27/20102:01 PM
008609
Ke: Lrwo: tiun nageoy upoate ll" J
do to protect our nation's waters.

Natalie
Executive
Clean Water Network
DONATE <https:/lwww.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd= s-xclick&hosted button id=10415346>

Organization's Budget Dues
0-$100,000 $60
$100,000-$250,000 $150
$250,000-$500 000 $300
1$500,000-$2
$700
lover $2 million $900
*C1ean Water Network
218 D Street SE
! 202.547.4208*
II * check out our website at:*
*www.claanwatarnatwork.org* <http://r20.rs6.net!tn.jsp?et=1103368625057&s=1354&e=0OlYsMIRZvrEcVem2uYgZg, PhiUfJ8HNOTf Kt XX9mbl rH vo48WX bPW TZCKL2Jrw eXO LVrechlh f05ndL5MNon2S8sTLbwzYn flSW1f84 . vJkoKKsv-
SD
Forward email <http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1102259806148&ea=mark.w.rniller%40noaa.gov&

a=1103368625057>
Safe Unsubscribe <http://visitor.constantcontact.com
Id.jsp?v=001TgkDdJpTfno cxOipQkvjOKZP 6RjGiDfFRNryf72TEAaYBSApR2MQ%3D%3D&p=un>
This email was sent to mark.w.rnil1er@noaa.qov by cwnheadauarters@cwn.org <mai1to:cwnheadguarters@cwn.org>.
Update ProfilelEmail Address <http://visitor.constantcontact . com
Id.isp?v=001TgkDdJpTfno cxOipQkyjOKZP 6RjGiDfFRNryf72TEAaYB8ApR2MQ%3D%3D&p=oo> I Instant removal with
SafeUnsubscribe <http://visitor.constantcontact.com
Id.jsp?v=OOlTgkDdJpTfno cxOipQkyjOKZP 6RjGiDfFRNryf72TEAaYB8ApR2MQ%3D%3D&p=un>~ I privacy policy
<http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp> .
Ii
I
. Email Marketing <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?CC=TEM News 206> by

<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc-TEM News 206>
I
Clean Water Network I 218 D St. SE I Washington I DC I 20003
Mary B. Evans
Staff Scientist
Genwest/NOAA
30f3
9/27/20102:01 PM
008610
NU:S weekly - May 10, LUlU
Subject: NOS Weekly - May 10, 2010

From: NOS Weekly <nosaa.weekly@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 09:32:22 -0400
To: nosallhands@noaa.gov, distribution.nosweekly@noaa.gov
~~_
NAT
ION
A' L
~ ..";.""_
'<J'"
~~:~ ~~~ -,.;:'~ '~'~
R V
ICE
Weekly Update - May 10,2010

Greetings,
"This spill is the kind of test that shows who we really are, and I'm so very proud of the impressive effort that
everyone is making. "
These were Dr. Lubchenco's words last week. I couldn't have said it better myself. Whether you are involved
with NOAA's massive response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or carrying out vital activities such as
ensuring safe marine transportation, reducing marine debris, protecting coral reefs, or any of NOS's many other
activities, your work is essential.
Holly and I will provide an update on the spill response at the NOS All Hands Meeting later today. We will also
update you on what's been happening on the "13th floor"" since the last All Hands Meeting in February.
I also want to invite you to partiCipate in the 7th Annual NOAA Restoration Day. This year's event is
Tuesday, June 15, 2010, at the NOAA Cooperative Oxford Laboratory in Maryland. For more information,
including how to sign up, see http://restorationday.noaa.gov/. Please note that you will need to sign up by
June 1.
David Kennedy
Acting Assistant Administrator
Please plan to attend the NOS All Hands Meeting today at 2:00 p.m. EDT, in the NOAA Auditorium.
Instructions for accessing the meeting via phone are available here: https:l/inside.nos.noaa.gov/foremployees
ladmin/allhands/allhands051010.html
If you are able to participate in today's meeting in person, please
stop by SSMC4, lW611, afterward for the May Juicer.
Here's a look at what's happening around NOS ...

Update on Response Efforts for the Deepwater Horizon Incident (ORBr.R)
On May 5, both NOAA overflights and dispersant operations resumed due to improving weather. Four aircraft
applied dispersants to the surface slick and dispersant application by vessels is expected to begin on May 6.
NOAA overflights were conducted over the source as well as south from Mobile, AL. At present, technical
specialists and other personnel from many agencies and organizations are assisting NOAA in providing scientific
support for the spill response. With further in-situ burning planned for May 6, the National Atmospheric
Release Advisory Center, an atmospheric hazards prediction team at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
will begin predictive modeling of the smoke plumes. Meanwhile, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administrationvolunteered use of a reconnaissance aircraft for NOAA to conduct overflights of the affected
areas. During overflights, trained observers record locations of oil, affected wildlife, and other relevant
observations. For more information, contact Doug Helton.
Specialized Products Developed to Support Oil Spill Response (CO-OPS, OCS)
In order to support the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response efforts, the Center for Operational Oceanographic
Products and Services (CO-OPS) has modified existing products to display real-time data and predictions in the
Gulf of Mexico. CO-OPS has reengineered its hurricane-based product, the NOAA Storm OuickLook, to include
an Office of Response and Restoration spill graphic and provide a detailed view of CO-OPS water levels and
meteorological data in potentially affected areas. CO-OPS has also developed a specialized display of Physical
Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS) data from Gulfport, Pascagoula, and Mobile Bay PORTS. Using
Ion
9/27/20102:01 PM
008611
NUS Weekly - May I U, 20 I U
MyPORTS, a customizable PORTS application, CO-OPS has created a display of

as
well as weather observations in the spill region. In addition, CO-OPS and the Office
Coast Survey's
Development Laboratory are accelerating a development project of a high-resolution hydrodynamic model for
the northern Gulf of Mexico coast. This model covers the coastline from the Rio Grande River in Texas to
Pensacola, FL, and produces forecasts of water levels and currents out to 48 hours. For more information,
contact Richard Edwing.
Maritime Shipping Industry Uses NOAA Nautical Charts that Display Oil Spill Projections (OCS)
To support the continuation of safe and efficient maritime commerce, NOAA is producing nautical chart products
that display the spill zone forecast based on current spill projections. The charts depict the 48 hour forecast for
oil location juxtaposed against the standard safety fairways that lead to the ports. Vessels that pass through oil
must undergo decontamination before entering ports and the charts alert ships to the location of the spill area
forecast. The Office of Coast Survey's (OCS) daily updated electronic and raster charts assist mariners to
navigate the area efficiently. The U.S. Coast Guard also uses the chart information to craft instructions to
vessels transiting U.S. waters. OCS is also coordinating with the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office to provide
the spill forecast data for UK charting systems used by foreign vessels coming Into U.S. ports. For more
information, contact Captain Doug Baird.
Helping Gulf States Prepare for Oil Spill (OCRM)
The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) is helping states prepare for potential impacts
of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Staff from the Estuarine Reserves Division. are working with the five Gulf
National Estuarine Research Reserves to help them detect and prepare for the oil's possible landfall. Reserves
in Mississippi. Alabama. Florida. and Texas have been collecting water and sediment samples to establish a
baseline measure for hydrocarbon and other contaminants before oil reaches their bays and wetlands. Some
reserve staff also are being trained to handle hazardous materials to support cleanup and continue to sampling
efforts after oil reaches the shore. OCRM's Coastal Zone Management specialists are in regular contact with
state coastal managers to provide NOAA and federal updates, information, and contacts to help them prepare.
The National Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Center created the map, U.S. MPAs In Proximity of the Deepwater
Horizon 011 Spill, to show the boundaries of MPAs that could be affected by the oil and other data. For more
information, contact Ellen Ternes.
NOS Participates at the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands (XPO, OCRM)
NOS International Program Office (IPO) organized a work session on Integrating watershed and coastal
management for the 5th Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, held in PariS from May 3-7. The
objectives of this session were to follow up on recommendations from the 2008 Forum's Freshwater to Ocean
working group by highlighting specific national and regional case studies on implementation of integrated
watershed and coastal management, identify lessons learned from current projects and programs, and to
provide examples of successful national and International partnerships for watershed and coastal management
integration. The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management also participated In this session. The
session was co-convened by IPO, the Global Environmental Facility-funded Integrating Watershed and Coastal
Area Management Program for the Caribbean, and the United Nations Environment Programme Global
Programme of Action. For more information, contact Clement Lewsey or Gonzalo Cid.
Marine Mapping Application Features New Tools and Data (CSC)
An updated version of the Multipurpose Marine Cadastre is now available. Organizations use this online marine
information system planning tool to screen coastal and marine spaces for new uses including renewable energy
projects and other offshore activities. Users can pinpoint a location on a map and quickly access the aSSOCiated
legal, physical, ecological, and cultural information. The new version uses Web-map services, an improvement
on the static data files of the past, and contains additional marine habitat and sea-floor data and Improved
analysis and rendering tools. The Multipurpose Marine Cadastre is a multiagency effort led by NOAA and the
U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service. For more Information, contact """........~,.",.,...
Training Held for Surveyors at American Congress of Surveying and Mapping Conference (NGS)
>From April 24-28, the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) trained surveyors at the American Congress of
Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) conference in Phoenix, AZ, by presenting technical workshops and performing
outreach on a Wide variety of geospatial topics. NGS is actively involved in many ACSM committees to generate
policy, develop educational programs, and support publications to advance the professional and technical
interests of the surveying and mapping communities. ACSM members represent a large portion of NGS's
constituents, and the conference provided an excellent opportunity for the federal government to meet with the
user community. For more Information, contact Ronnie Taylor.
NOAA Award Helps New York Ensure Continued Seafood Safety (NCCOS)
On April 29, NOAA's Harmful Algal Bloom Event Response program provided New York's Division of Fish,
Wildlife, and Marine Resources with the necessary funds to continue monitoring toxin levels in Long Island
Sound shellfish. These officials are closely monitoring the sound and its tributaries, where algae numbers are
20f3
9/27/20102:01 PM
008612
NU~
weeKlY -
May I U, LV I V
rising and some shellfish samples have tested positive for low levels of the cells' toxins. Due to a state budget
crisis, New York's shellfish monitors were extremely concerned for the monitoring program, where a delay of
funds could jeopardize public health and weaken the safety net for consumers of Long Island Sound seafood.
With NOAA's award, the state can continue to screen shellfish for the bloom's toxin and provide other testing
needed to implement a closure to protect human health. For more information, contact Marc Suddleson.
Sanctuary Divers Receive Additional Training to Ensure Safety (ONMS)
On April 27-30, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Lower Region Damage Assesment, Remediation,
and Restoration Program (DARRP) team members led the instruction for a Rescue and Nitrox Dive Training.
The training was organized to ensure safe diving practices. Divers had the opportunity to reinforce their
rescue skills in emergency situations and their general knowledge of enriched air nitrox. DARRP team members
not involved in dive training focused their efforts on in-office data entry, report formulation, finalizing coral reef
restoration plans and monitoring reports, developing coral reef and seagrass monitoring templates, and
finalizing various injury assessment reports. For more information, contact Lonny Anderson .
NOS is on Flickr ... check it out.
300
9/27/20102:01 PM
008613
UII
tillaget
Subject: Oil Budget

From: "Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 18:54:20 -0700
To: Elizabeth Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>
Liz,
Debbie said that you were working on an oil budget. Could you send me what you
developed?
Mark
1 of 1
9/27/2010 2:01 PM
Re: Oil Budget
008614
Subject: Re: Oil Budget

From: Elizabeth Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 11 May 201010:20:20 -0400
To: "Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.lVliller@noaa.gov>
Hi Mark,
I'm waiting for emulsification rate information from Scott Miles at LSD.
as I can incorporate that information into what I'm doing I send it off.
As soon
LJ
i Liz,
!
!!
I Debbie said that you were working on an oil budget. Could you send me what you
!, developed?
I Mark
1 of I
9/27/20102:02 PM
008615
Re: Oil Budget

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 07:44:46 -0700
Thanks Liz. This is one of those crazy topics here.
Mark
Elizabeth Jones wrote:
Hi Mark,
I'm waiting for emulsification rate information from Scott Miles at LSU. As
soon as I can incorporate that information into what I'm doing I send it off.
LJ
I Liz,
I!
!
1 Debbie said
i developed?
Mark
1 of I
that you were working on an oil budget. Could you send me what you
,, ,I
; ~
Ii
9/27/2010 2:02 PM
008616
Re: Oil Budget

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 12:29:42 -0400
To: "Mark.W.Millerll <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Mark, almost done. Do you have numbers about the amount recovered, burned,
dispersed to date that I can include in my budget?
Liz. This is one of those crazy topics here.
! Thanks
I Mark
I Elizabeth Jones wrote:
II
II ar,
I'm waiting for emulsification rate information from Scott Miles at LSU.
II'!!i off.
soon as
can incorporate that information into what I'm doing
send it
LJ
!
H'
l
: !
iI
1I
II
Debbie said that you were working on an oil budget. Could you send me what
you developed?
:1 Mark
t1"
lofl
!, ,!
I!
,1
I! !;
II!t
wrote:
lZ,
:: t
IIII Mark.W.Miller
L'
~
AS '
I!1!
~ t
i ~
i i
~ ~
I:
, ,
9/27/20102:02 PM
[Fwd: Re: Oil Budget]
008617
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget]

From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>.
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:30:04 -0700
To: Amy McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Elizabeth Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>
Amy,
Can you send Liz the latest for those questions? We will share our product with you as soon
as it gets reviewed up the chain.
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Re: Oil Budget
Date:Tue, 11 May 2010 12:29:42 -0400
From:Elizabeth Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>
To:Mark. W. Miller <Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov>
References:<4BE8B8CC.3070403@noaa.gov> <4BE967A4.9000004@noaa.gov>
<4BE96D5E.8010603@noaa.gov>
Mark, almost done. Do you have numbers about the amount recovered,
burned, dispersed to date that I can include in my budget?
> Thanks Liz. This is one of those crazy topics here.
>
> Mark
>
> Elizabeth Jones wrote:
Hi Mark,
I'm waiting for emulsification rate information from Scott Miles at

LSD. As soon as I can incorporate that information into what I'm
doing I send it off.
LJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
1 oft
Liz,
Debbie said that you were working on an oil budget. Could you send
me what you developed?
Mark
9/27/20102:02 PM
008618
RE: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget)
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget]

From: "McElroy, Amy LT' <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>
Date: Tue, 11 May 201013:37:17 -0400
To: Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Elizabeth Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>
Attached is the latest version of the draft oil budget. We sent our version to the UAC, who
then sent it to the rcp Houma, and this is the version that was returned.
Amy
-----Original Message----From: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May II, 2010 1:30 PM
To: McElroy, Amy LT; Elizabeth Jones
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget]
Amy,
Can you send Liz the latest for those questions? We will share our product with you as soon
as it gets reviewed up the chain.
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:
Re: Oil Budget
Date:
Tue, 11 May 2010 12:29:42 -0400
From:
Elizabeth Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov> <mailto:Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>
To:
Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov> <mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.aov>
References:
<4BE8B8CC.3070403@noaa.gov> <mailto:4BE8BBCC.3070403@noaa.gov>
<4BE967A4.9000004@noaa.gov> <mailto:4BE967A4.9000004@noaa.qov> <4BE96D5E.8010603@noaa.gov>
<mailto:4BE96D5E.8010603@noaa.Qov>
Mark, almost done. Do you have numbers about the amount recovered,
burned, dispersed to date that r can include in my budget?
i Thanks Liz. This is one of those crazy topics here.

j
! Mark
!
: Elizabeth Jones wrote:

Hi Mark,
i'
I
I'm waiting for emulsification rate information from Scott Miles at

As soon,as I can incorporate that information into what I'm
I send ). t off.
LJ
I dOJ.ng
1. LS?
i
jl Mark.W.Miller
wrote:
I,
ii
Liz,
. Debbie said that you were working on an oil budget. Could you send
me what you developed?
; Mark
II
!
. . t"
. Oil Budget Worksheet from

Cont ent -Descnp Ion. Houma.xlsx
IOil Budget Worksheet from Houma.xlsx Content-Type:

Content-Encoding:
lofl
application/vnd.openxmlformatsofflcedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
base64
9/27/20102:02 PM
MC252 Estimated Oil Budget Worksheet for 10 MAY

Metbod
Number Soune IParameter
Unit
Volume oil
Percent of oil
Volume oil
008619
based on surface area and thickness calculations
waste
I Percentae.e volume oil per volume of oily solid waste. (Low cmprical
Constant
Calculated
volume oil removed from surface with sorbents.
Calculated
oil on the surface.
bbls oil
33
Re: Preliminary Budget Infonnation
008620
Subject: Re: Preliminary Budget Information

From: Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 14:28:46 -0400

cc: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Thanks.
Turns out the field guys guessed 93K.
Here's where we should be able to do better. We have a full wx file on the spill
and can use real wx (should be straight forward process of dumping the wx data
into ADIOS, right?).
Then, I want a total number, I don't care about change over
time - our estimate is off as the estimates of recoverdldispersed/burned oil (not
good) .
Something like:
"On May 09, 2010 1200 COT:
90,000 barrels, up to 20% of
~hich
is water"

IAtt~ched please find the preliminary budget information.
~
1 If you have questions
call me 206-849-9918
I am stepping out to run a
I quick errand and will be back in 20-30 minutes.
! Liz
"
Stephen Lehmann <steve.lehmann@noaa.gov> i

Scientific Support Coordinator
Emergency Response Division
NOAA
1 of 1
9/27/20102:02 PM
Re: Preliminary Budget Information
008621
Subject: Re: Preliminary Budget Information

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:43:43 -0400
To: Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
CC: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Steve,
They guessed 93K because they
that we did not account for.
period of the spill, which is
No, it is not as easy as just
run it for 5 days at a time.
accounted for 1000Brrls a day for 20th, 21st, 22nd

Our oil budget began on April 23 the first full 24hr
what you told me you wanted on the phone.
dumping wx information into ADIOS as you can only
I estimated the numbers for the mechanical, dispersed, burned oil and didn't put
real numbers in because I wasn't confident in the information I had. It wasn't
until after I sent this to
did I receive.
LJ
Steve Lehmann wrote:
Thanks. Turns out the field guys guessed 93K. Here's where we should be able to
do better. We have a full wx file on the spill and can use real wx (should be
straight forward process of dumping the wx data into ADIOS, right?).
Then, I
want a total number, I don't care about change over time - our estimate is off
as the estimates of recoverd/dispersed/burned oil (not good).
Something like:
nOn May 09. 2010 1200 CDT:
90,000 barrels, up to 20% of which is water"

find the preliminary budget information.
IAttached please
I If
I
I
f
you have questions please call me

quick errand and will be back in 20-30 minutes.
!i Liz
1 of 1
am stepping out to run a

t
!, !
9/27/2010 2:02 PM
Re: Development of Surface oil product
008622
Subject: Re: Development of Surface oil product

From: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 13:03:39 -0700
To: Richard.R.Wingrove@noaa.gov
CC: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/0S/bp-gulf-oil-spill-how-bigis-it.html?showComment=1273514593461~c7867261365503212032
Richard.R.Wingrove@noaa.gov wrote:
I Doug,
I
I Thanks
again for your help on the development of a product showing the USCG what
\ 93K barrels of oil looks like on the water.
Your idea of bringing together a
i group of experts to calculate the oil volume using the Bonn Code was good.
~ I discussed the concept with CAPT Beeson the original requester.
He is willing
to wait until NOAA (Liz Jones) is finished developing a oil budget.
If we can
~ release that budget to the USCG, they may just use that.
This would eliminate
the need to convene the expert group.
,
! However later in the week, Mark and I are schedule to meet with CAPT Lloyd and
I ADM Allen's Chief of Staff to discuss oil budget issues. They may want to
implement the expert group.
!
i
1 I will let you know how things play out.

~
i Thanks
again for your idea and
,I
I Richard
Doug Helton
Incident Operations Coordinator
NOAA Emergency Response Division
(24-hour Duty Officer)

b!tp~ijre~ponse.restoration.noaa.gov
1 of 1
9/27/20102:02 PM
008623

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 19:56:15 -0700
To: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>
Doug,
You mentioned some background documents for oil budget. Can you send them to me or
point me in the right direction?
Mark
Doug Helton wrote:
http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-how-bigis-it.html?showCornment=1273514593461#c78672613655032l2032
i'
1.1
Doug,
Thanks again for your help on the development of a product showing the USCG
what 93K barrels of oil looks like on the water. Your idea of bringing
together a group of experts to calculate the oil volume using the Bonn Code
was good. I discussed the concept with CAPT Beeson the original requester.
! He is willing to wait until NOAA (Liz Jones) is finished developing a oil
! budget. If we can release that budget to the USCG, they may just use that.
l This would eliminate the need to convene the expert group.
!i
II
I
I
However later in the week, Mark and I are schedule to meet with CAPT Lloyd and
ADM Allen's Chief of Staff to discuss oil budget issues. They may want to
implement the expert group.
I will let you know how things play out.
I! Thanks
!
Richard
again for your idea and help.
I
I'
!
!I.
IIi,l,i
i!
11
II.,'
<
II
II
IIL
II
l'
!!
I'!
I
1 of 1
9/27/20102:02 PM
008624

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 23:22:36 -0400
To: Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov" <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>
III
Liz jones was working it.

Message ----From: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.qov>
To: Doug Helton <Douq.Helton@noaa.gov>; Debbie Payton
Sent: Tue May 11 22:56:15 2010
Doug,
You mentioned some background documents for oil budget. Can you send
them to me or point me in the right direction?
Mark
Doug Helton wrote:
I http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-how-big-
is-it.html?showCornrnent=1273514593461#c7867261365503212032
I
i.
wrote:
Thanks again for your help on the development of a product showing
the USCG what 93K barrels of oil looks like on the water. Your idea
of bringing
a group of experts to calculate the oil volume
using the Bonn Code was good.
I discussed the concept with CAPT Beeson the original requester.
He
is willing to wait until NOAA (Liz Jones) is finished developing a
oil budget.
If we can release that budget to the USCG, they may
just use that.
This would eliminate the need to convene the expert
group.
However later in the week, Mark and I are schedule to meet with CAPT
Lloyd and ADM Allen's Chief of Staff to discuss oil budget issues.
They may want to implement the expert group.
i I Thanks
II
II.
I ofl .
again for your idea and help.
I
II
II
I
Ii
I!
II
.I
II
II
!
( 5
ij
!1
I!
11
R1char
9/27/20102:02 PM
008625

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:38:51 -0700
To: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>
Doug,
If you are referring to the oil budget Liz created than I have it. Is she working
on other related documents?
Mark
,Doug Helton wrote:
l Liz j ones was working it.
~
!
I From:
Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>; Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>
: Sent: Tue May 11 22:56:15 2010
i, Subject: Re: Development of Surface oil product
i To:
! Doug,
1 You mentioned some background documents for oil budget. Can you send
! them
~
to me or point me in the right direction?
I Mark
!
i Doug
Helton wrote:
!!lI http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-how-bigis-it.html?showComment=1273514593461#c7867261365503212032
i!
i, 1I
!I
~ 1
Doug,

the USCG what 93K barrels of oil looks like on the water.
Your idea
,
of bringing together a group of experts to calculate the oil volume
i_using the Bonn Code was good.
:,:
I discussed the concept with CAPT Beeson the original requester.
He
,
It oil budget.
just use that.
i group.
I
I
l
I ----- Original Message -----
I
!
!
1
I,i
!
IIII
I
!,
i
I
I
I
I
However later in the week, Mark and I are schedule to meet with CAPT
Lloyd and ADM Allen's Chief of Staff to discuss oil budget issues.
Thanks again for your idea and help.
11
11
Ij
!1
i
I
: i
I Richard
i! I;
lof2
9/27/20102:02 PM
2of2
008626
9/27/20102:02 PM
008627

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 23:42:07 -0400

To: "'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.govlll <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
That is the only thing I have. We have played with other numbers in the worst
case effort.
----- Original Message ----From: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To: Doug Helton <Douq.Helton@noaa.gov>
Sent: Tue May 11 23:38:51 2010
Doug/
If you are referring to the oil budget Liz created than I <have it. Is
she working on other related documents?
Mark
?oug Helton wrote:
Liz jones was working it.
t
i
i ----- Original Message ----! From: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
! To: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>i Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>
i Sent: Tue May 11 22:56:15 2010
I Subject: Re: Development of Surface oil product
I
I Doug,
~
You mentioned some background documents for oil budget. Can you send
them to me or point me in the right direction?
! Mark
; Doug Helton wrote:
1
1
II http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-how-big-
II is-it.html?showComment=1273514593461#c7867261365503212032
!'
II
II..
Richard.R.Wingrove@noaa.gav wrate,
Doug,
!
i
I,
j
1I
!
II
II
!
II

the USCG what 93K barrels of oil looks like on the water. Your idea
of bringing together a group of experts to calculate the oil volume
using the Bonn Code was good.
I discussed the concept with CAPT Beeson the original requester. He
oil budget.
just use that.
group.
I. ! However later in the week, Mark and I are schedule to meet with CAPT
r Lloyd and ADM Allen's Chief of Staff to discuss oil budget issues.
lof2
9/27/20102:02 PM
008628
! Thanks again for your idea and help.
I' Richard
I'
20f2
9/27/20102:02 PM
008629
[Fwd: Preliminary Budget Information]
Subject: [Fwd: Preliminary Budget Information]

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 21 :26:00 -0700
To: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>
Debbie,
Last email of the night I promise. I am not sure what I expected but this really didn't help me much. I am
pretty sure the CG would not find this too useful. Can you think of any docs we have that describe the
uncertainty of calculating the oil budget?
Do you know if Robert added the oil to ADIOS so we could get an updated weathering picture of it. I
thought we finally got the chemistry needed to do that.
Good night.
Mark
- - - Original Message - - Subject:Preliminary Budget Information
Date:Tue, 11 May 201014:01:37 -0400
From:Elizabeth Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>
To:Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
Attached please find the preliminary budget information.

If you have questions please call me 206-849-9918 I am stepping out to
run a quick errand and will be back in 20-30 minutes.
Liz
Preliminarybudget LJ_May2010.docx
I of 1
t t T
.
application/vnd.openxmlformatson en - ype.
officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Content-Encoding: base64
9/27/20102:02 PM
008630
Preliminary Oil Budget through May 10, 2010

100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
Barrels Oil
50000
iIIII
40000
Evaporated
Naturally Dispersed
30000
Remaining
20000
10000
0
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
5/3
5/5
5/7
5/9
This graph depicts a preliminary oil budget calculation of the oil that has been released between the
dates of April21- May 10,2010.
A release rate of 5,000 Barrels/Day, an evaporation rate of 30% and a natural dispersion rate of 10%
were used in making this assumption.
Initial testing results show this oil type contains approximately 1-20% water content. It is unknown how
much of the oil has actually emulsified.
To date over 9,500 barrels of surface dispersants, approximately 300 barrels of deepwater dispersants
have been applied, and approximately 95,000 barrels of oily water have been mechanically recovered.
In addition an estimated 10,000 barrels of oil is believed to have been successfully burned.
For Internal Use Only

Date Prepared May 11, 2010
Oil Chemistry .
008631
Subject: Oil Chemistry

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 21 :48:15 -0700
To: Robert Jones <Robert.Jones@noaa.gov>, Jim Farr <Jim.Farr@noaa.gov>

Jim and Robert,
I have to brief ADM Allen on why it is so hard to do an accurate oil budget.
Could you write us a short executive summary on what we know about this oil and
how it weathers in the environment.
Have we entered this oil into ADIOS? If so could you send me the very latest
output from ADIOS. If not then an understanding of what we are still missing.
I am not sure exactly when I have to brief him but it will be soon so if you can
get me something by noon your time that would be
Mark
1 of 1
9/27/20102:02 PM
Re: [Fwd: Preliminary Budget Information]
008632
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Preliminary Budget Information]

From: Debbie. Payton@noaa.gov
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 21:56:28 -0700
sorry mark, i can't think of any documents.
i do think robert added the oil to adios quite a while ago (maybe jeff did it
before he left), but i don't think the answers are going to be any different.
the weathering issue is that adios is a 5 day model and some of the oil out there
is
almost three weeks old . . .
doesn't sound like it will be fun to punt on this one in the am
Original Message ----From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:26 pm
Subject: [Fwd: Preliminary Budget Information)
Debbie,
Last email of the night I promise. I am not sure what I expected but
this really didn't help me much. I am pretty sure the CG would not
find
this too useful. Can you think of any docs we have that describe the
uncertainty of calculating the oil budget?
Do you know if Robert added the oil to ADIOS so we could
an
updated
picture of it. I thought we finally got the chemistry
night.
Mark
Preliminary Budget Information
Date:
Tue, 11 May 2010 14:01:37 -0400
From:
Elizabeth Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>
To:
Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Steve Lehmann
<Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
Attached please find the preliminary budget information.

If you have questions please call me
I am stepping out
to
run a quick errand and will be back in 20-30 minutes.
Liz
lof1
9/27/20]02:02 PM
Re: Tasked Robert and Jim
008633
Subject: Re: Tasked Robert and Jim

From: Oebbie.Payton@noaa.gov
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 21:57:30 -0700
To: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
did you read ed overtons' email (if you didn't see it I put it in the faq folder
(which is now private))
Original Message ----From: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.qov>
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:55 pm
Subject: Tasked Robert and Jim
I lied. I asked Jim and robert to write up a brief executive summary
of what we know about the oil chemistry. I also asked about ADIOS.
I found a paper from iosc 2001 I think that talked about oil budget
calculations.
Mark
1 of 1
9/27/2010 2:02 PM
Re: Oil Chemistry
008634
Subject: Re: Oil Chemistry
From: Jim Farr <Jim.Farr@noaa.gov>

Date: Wed, 12 May 201007:11:35 -0700

CC: Robert Jones <Robert.Jones@noaa.gov>
Mark
Yes, I'll try to put something together and will consult with Robert.
Jim
and Robert,
t Jim
J
; I have to brief ADM Allen on why it is so hard to do an accurate oil budget.
I Could you write us a short executive summary on what we know about this oil and
(how it weathers in the environment.
j
I Have we entered this oil into ADIOS? If so could you send me the very latest
from ADIOS. If not then an understanding of what we are still missing.
I output
II
am not sure exactly when I have to brief him but it will be soon so if you can
me something by noon your time that would be great.
,) get
! Mark
1 of 1
9/27/20102:02 PM
FYI -- NOAA playing big part in oil spill cleanup
008646
Subject: FYI-- NOAA playing big part in oil spill cleanup

From: Ed Levine <Ed.Levine@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 09:10:58 -0400
To: _NOS ORR All <nos.orr.all@noaa.gov>
14 News, The Tri-State's News and Weather

Leader-NOAA playing big part in oil spill
cleanup
Member Center:
Ie
Create Accountl
Log In
Manage Accountl
Log Out
SITE SEARCH
WEB SEARCH BY Googlel
HOME
o Ask the Expert
o
The Leaal Views
o Medicai Minute
o
Goina Green
o
All Around the House
o
Obituaries
o
Most Wanted
o
NewsTiDs
o
ProClrammina
o Tools &. Skin-Ups
NEWS
.
o 14wfie.com Webcams
o Cool Schools
o Takina the Lead
o
14 News Sunrise
o
Loca I Stocks
WEATHER
o Going Green
o
Personal Forecast
o
ThunderCall
o
Interactive Radar
o
Weather Tools
o Neklhborhood Network
o National &. Reaional MaDs
SPORTS
o Golf Personal Forecast
o
Soccer Personal Forecast
o
RSS Feed Information
HEALTH
o In The Red for Women
o
Medical Connections
o
Medical BreakthrouQhs
. 0
Medical Minute
ENTERTAINMENT
o Proarammina
o 14wfie.com Webcams
o
Mr. Food Recipes
10f8
9/27/2010 2:02 PM
008647
Lottery Results
Movie Times
HoroscoDes
CONTESTS
"
o Tools & Skln-UDS
o General"Contest Rules
lOB LINK
o lob Link
o lobs at 14 WFIe
o EmDlover Loain
o Job Seeker Loa in
REAL ESTATE
ABOUT US
o Takina a Stand
o Contact WFIE
o CommunitY
o Jobs at 14"WFIE
o Meet the 14 News Team
o Proarammina
LIFESTYLE
a Main
a Father's Day
o Summer
a Health
o Home/FamilY
o Monev
o Food
o Travel
o Pets
a
Tech
a
Auto
o
Entertainment
a
Green
a
Tax Guide
o
VideoBvtes
o
o
Email
Print
Text Size
NOAA playing big part in oil spill cleanup

Posted: May 12, 20106:17 PM Updated: May 12,20109:27 PM
INSIDE 14WFIE.com
Oil executives laying blame on everyone else
14 Headlines More
Dozens of campers moved from sites at Kentucky Lake & Lake Barkley
2of8
9/27/20102:02 PM
008648
Dalai Lama's Indiana visit brings economic impact

Study: Future droughts may be rare in IN, IL
Local lawmakers concerned about hiring at Aventine plant
Haarsma, Williams reuniting at UW-Milwaukee?
Aces improve to 27-21 with win over Austin Peay
Siller reinstated to Purdue football team
KY lawmakers have five days to create budget
Police find missing Vincennes teen
Family left homeless, dog dies in Newburgh house fire
By Chad Sewich - bio I email I Twitter
Posted by Sarah Harlan - email
EVANSVILLE, IN (WFIE) - It's now been three weeks since an oil rig exploded, killing 11 workers and
sending millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
You might be surprised to learn one of the agencies responding is the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
More than 200,000 gallons of crude a day is gushing out of the BP well, located 50 miles off the
coast of Louisiana.
Along with wildlife, the disaster is threatening fisheries, shipping. and tourism along the coast in four
states.
NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration has taken a leadership role in dealing with the disaster.
The government agency has created a detailed website displaying the latest location and track of the
oil spill.
The site also shows the hardest hit areas and which shorelines have been compromised by oil.
The website is just one part of NOAA's comprehensive response to the spill.
The agency has several branches that are providing scientific, weather. and biological responses,
which include: providing detailed weather forecasts, predicting the track of the spill, identifying
resources at risk, and recommending clean-up methods.
As for the scope of the spill, Google maps has set-up a special tool that allows users to superimpose the current size of the spill over land.
Experts say the environmental cost of the spill likely won't be known for years.
Crews in the Gulf are trying a new. smaller cap to place over the leak.
2010 WFIE. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or
30f8
9/27/20102:02 PM
FYl -- NOAA playing big part in oil spill cleanup
008649
redistributed.
Unrated
You must be logged in to rate this story. Login or register

Comments
Terms of Use: We welcome your participation in our community. Please keep your comments civil
and on point. Notify us of any inappropriate comments by clicking the "Mark as Offensive" link. You
must be at least 13 years of age to post comments. By submitting a comment, you agree to these
Terms of Service
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login or register
r
-~ -
.-
Login
This Page
Share
Follow
Add images
Echo o Items
cancel I
Past I
Admin
See all comments

Close windowBranding
NOAA playing big part in oil spill cleanup
Login
Share
This Page
Add images
Echo o Items
Admin
Close window
40f8
9/27/2010 2:02 PM
50f8
008650
9/27/20102:02 PM
FYI-- NOAA playing big part in oil spill cleanup
008651
This weekend at the movies
6of8
Robin Hood
Letters to Juliet
Just Wright
Iron Man 2
Search movie showtimes!
9/27/20102:02 PM
7of8
008652
9/27/20102:02 PM
008653
Powered by World Now

All content Copyright 2000 - 2010 WorldNow and WFIE, a Raycom Media Station.
All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service.
8of8
9/27/20102:02 PM
Oil Budget
008654
Subject: Oil Budget

From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.goV>.
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 07:32:37 -0700
To: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>, Elizabeth Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>
The second highest Nrc issue is the oil budget. Could you send me the latest and
greatest and I will try to check in with you in between working on the Barrier
Island
ect.
Mark
1 of 1
9/27/20102:02 PM
Re: Oil Budget
008655

Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 07:55:52 -0700
To: "Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>
Mark,
We are waiting for Debbie and Bill L. to take a look at it and give comments.
LJ
The second highest NIC issue is the oil budget. Could you send me the latest and
! greatest and I will try to check in with you in between working on the Barrier
Island project.
t
I Mark
I
I
1 of 1
9/27/20102:02 PM
Barrier Island - Point Paper from the work group
008656
Subject: Barrier Island - Point Paper from the work group

From: "Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
Date: Thu, 13 May 201011:43:43 -0700
To: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>
Doug,
Here is what our group put together today for general comments associated with the
LA proposal.
Mark
Content-Type:
appl ication/msword
louisiana Dredging Response.doc C
E
.
b 64
ontent- ncodmg: ase
lof1
9/27/20102:02 PM
008657
Interagency Solutions Group discussion of Louisiana proposal for dredging

Recommendation and Issues Raised
2:37PM, 5/13/2010
Summary:
The LA Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority proposes a massive berm construction
project involving pipeline dredging of over 72M cu yds of fill material to enhance and reconnect
barrier islands as an oil spill defensive technique. The proposal is conceptual in nature, making
rapid analysis challenging without detail and information on cost, constructability, and potential
environmental impact. Further, this would be an enormous undertaking under emergency
authorities of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator using a technique that is not a planned response
technique and may not achieve the desired results in a sufficiently timely manner. The following
are agencies involved and considerations provided within the context of the NIC Interagency
.
Solutions Group.
Contributing Agencies:
USCG
EPA
NOAA
DOl
USACE
DOT
USDA
FEMA
Feasibility:
1) Oil Response Timeliness: Untested response technology, concern about long duration of
construction versus rapid oil movement, particularly consideration of oil impacts prior to
and during construction. Duration is not specified, but likely extends multiple months
following mobilization.
2) Effort vs. Benefit: Time and level of effort for the response organization versus value
added. Example: $250M expenditures for unknown oil protection and temporary barrier
island protection.
3) Cost: Implementation of $250M considers construction, not efficacy and effects
monitoring, removal of contaminated materials, or final disposition costs. Unclear if this
project is cost effective for the questionable temporary protection.
4) Land Ownership: Ownership by both private and federal (USFWS Refuge) lands add
complexity.
Constructability:
1) Durability: This is purely a temporary and untested solution and may be ineffective.
The proposal does not include engineering for a permanent solution.
2) Lost use of Sand and Gravel: At least 72M cu yds of dredge materials is needed ... this
proposal exceeds past projects by orders of magnitude. This proposed volume may
simply not be available. Further, several proposed borrow sites are already slated for
008658
competing projects and will be lost for long-term proposals. Involved equipment and
borrow materials could substantially impact the coastal restoration plans in Gulf states.
3) Equipment: Availability of appropriate dredging equipment will pose challenges,
particularly without Jones Act waivers for use of non-US flagged vessels.
4) Hurricane Season: Storms pose potential conflict with schedule and efficacy ofproject.
5) Pipeline Infrastructure: Oil and gas pipeline setbacks may interfere with quick access
to available borrow sites and rapid implementation.
Environmental:
1) Consultations: Emergency consultations and coordination under Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat), National Historic Preservation Act, Coastal
Barrier Resources Act, Coastal Zone Management Act may be necessary. The National
Contingency Plan and OSC coordination addresses NEP A issues through equivalent
processes and provides administrative exemptions for emergency actions.
2) Seasonality: Environmental concerns have produced specified dredging periods based on
sensitive species. This is a highly important period for bird and sea turtle nesting in the
project area.
Oil Budget Review
008659
Subject: Oil Budget Review

From: "Mark. W. Miller" <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>.
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 13:20:39 -0700
To: "Tobiasz, Tim CDR" <Timothy.A.Tobiasz@uscg.mil>
The IASWG reviewed the process of generating the oil budget with the NrC situation
unit staff and developed an operational method for estimating the oil budget. The
process involves using the accepted estimated release rate and then evaluate the
natural and response processes that remove floating oil like skimming and
dispersant use.
1 of]
9/27/2010 2:02 PM
008662
FW: OIL BUDGET FOR S~ 1
Subject: FW: OIL BUDGET FOR 5-1

From: "Gelzer, Claudia CDR" <Claudia.C.Gelzer@USCG.MIL>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 19:54:52 -0500
To: Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Mark,
Please confirm
Thanks, Claudia
Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
-----Original Message----From:
White, Casey CDR
Sent:
Thursday, May 13, 201D 03:00 PM Central Standard Time
To:
HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit
Cc:
Penoyer, Brian CDR; White, Michael CAPT; Beeson, Scott CAPT; Gautier,
Peter CAPT; Haynes, David CAPT; Gelzer, Claudia CDR; Rooke, Connie CDR
Subject:
OIL BUDGET FOR S-l
Watch,
Attached is the most recent version of the oil budget. The assumptions have been
vetted througn the Interagency Solutions Group (mainly NOAA) .
vir,
CDR Casey White
NIC-DCDeputy COS
I Content-Description:
OIL BUDGET 12 MAy.docl Content-Type:

.
1 of 1
,I Content-Encoding:
OIL BUDGET 12 MAy.doc

application/msword
base64
9/27/2010 2:02 PM
RE: OIL BUDGET FOR S-I
008668
Subject: RE: OIL BUDGET FOR 8-1

From: "Gelzer, Claudia CDR" <Claudia.C.Gelzer@U8CG.MIL>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 20:42:19 -0500
Ask Tim tomorrow. Also Casey will have it, Mark. I'm on the road til Monday.
Thanks!
Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
-----Original Message----From: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, May 13, 201008:07 PM Central Standard Time
To:
Gelzer, Claudia CDR
Subject:
Re: FW: OIL BUDGET FOR S-1
I appreciate you getting this to me. Would I be able to get the Excel
sheet tomorrow? I don't need it tonight.
Mark
Gelzer, Claudia CDR wrote:
> Mark,
> Please confirm receipt.
> Thanks, Claudia
>
> Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)

>
>
> -----Original Message----> From:
White, Casey CDR
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 03:00 PM Central Standard Time
> To: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit
> Cc: Penoyer, Brian CDR; White, Michael CAPT; Beeson, Scott CAPT; Gautier, Peter CAPT; Haynes, David
CAPT; Gelzer, Claudia CDR; Rooke, Connie CDR
> Subject:
OIL BUDGET FOR S-1
>
> Watch,
>
> Attached is the most recent version of the oil budget. The assumptions have been vetted through the
Interagency Solutions Group (mainly NOAA).
>
> vIr.
> CDR Casey White
> NI C-DC Deputy COS
>
lof!
9/27/2010 2:02 PM
FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143
008669
Subject: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143

From: "Grawe, William ll <William.R.Grawe@USCG.MIL>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 10:18:46 -0500
cc: "Offutt, Todd CDR" <Todd.J.Offutt@USCG.MIL>, "Tobiasz, Tim CORn
<Timothy.A.Tobiasz@USCG.MIL>, IIKayyem, Juliette" <juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>
Mark .... there is now a congressional inquiry on the issue that you and David are
working on ... for your awareness ...
Todd - Mark Miller (NOAA) ... and David Moore (MMS) are reaching back into their
agencies to get additional clarity on the flow measurement issue ....
Bill
-----Original Message----From: Jones, Melinda
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:35 AM
To: HQS-DG-LST-CG DCO-Incident Support Team
Cc: DickeYr Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Hill, Patricia CDR; Jones, Melinda;
Langum, Scott CDR; Mackenzie, Nathan LT; Mason, Roberti McLaughlin, Daniel CDR;
Morrison, Stephanie LCDR; Offutt, Todd CDR; Warren, Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele:
Cashin, Charles CAPT; St. John, Jordan; Wright, Howard CDRi Collins, Laura CDR;
Derian, Matthew LT; Lauzon, Michelle CTR; Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank
CAPT; Didominicus, Lou; Re, Joseph CAPT; Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Chaney, William
CAPT; Goad, Michael; Latham, Dee; Lobsinger, Eric LT: Smith, Beverly; Venckus,
Steve: Carpenter, Sandra: Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger; Amidon, Dale;
Armstrong, Richard LT; Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn,
Patrick CAPT: Hannigan, Sean LCDR; Harker, Thomas CDR; Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR:
Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR; Keffer,
amin LT; Mohr, Kevin CDR;
Niemiec,. Jack CAPT;
Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson, Robert CDR;
Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Dykema, Stephen YNCM; Hickey, Jon CDR: HQS-DGlst-CG-821; HQS-DG-lst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR;Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd,
Pamela; Manzi, Kathryn; Martyn, David CTR: McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William
CTR; Smith, Derek LCDR; hqs-dg-1st-dcms-82; HQS-DG-lst-CG-DCO-A~SP; Medina,
Lizette; Montgomery, Patrick LT; Thompson, Matthew LCDR; Grawe, William; Guinee,
Paul; Thurber,
: Thuring, Allen; Grantham, Carla; Murk, David CDR;
Tobiasz, Tim CDR
Subject: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143
Sirs/Ma'am,
Will Painter (HAC-HLS) has requested response to the below question.
Background: recent reports (one article below) are indicating that the size of
the gulf oil spill might be well understated/underestimated.
TIMELINE: No later than 1400, May 19
If the requested deadline cannot be met; please provide the reason and your
estimated ETA. This will allow us to manage expectations.
ASSIGNMENTS:
(NC-HQ) Q&A #3143: What role has the CG played in estimated the flow rate of the
leak? What role is expected of the.CG in determining/verifying flow rate
estimates?
Database Access: <file:///\\hgs-nas-t-001\CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearings\Database
lof4
9/27/20102:02 PM
008670
\QIndex.2010.xlsm>
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
Informal Inquiries Manager
External Coordination Division (CG-823)
Office of Budget and Programs (CG-82)
U. S. Coast Guard
Melinda.E.Jones@uscg.mil
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5,000 or 26,000 barrels a day: Size of gulf oil spill is a guesstimate

By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2010; A06
For nearly three weeks, the world has been hearing about the leaking well on the
bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Now there's video footage, and it's not pretty,
showing a turbulent plume of oil and gas billowing from the end of a 21-inch pipe
that dropped to the mud floor of the gulf after the April 20 explosion on the
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.
But the new video clips don't clarify one of the biggest unknowns: How much oil
are we looking at?
The experts say emphatically that anyone who makes an estimate of the leak by
looking at the video is simply arm-waving. There are too many variables. The
stuff corning out of the pipe isn't just oil, for example, but a frothing cocktail
of oil, gas, brine and sediment from miles below the sea bottom.
BP, however, could try to measure the flow directly with off-the-shelf
instruments routinely used in research on deep-sea hydrothermal vents and cold
hydrocarbon seeps, according to scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution. They said devices that can essentially take a sonogram of the plume
could be strapped to one of the robotic submarines that BP has deployed around
the damaged well.
~You can use this type of technique to determine the velocity of the particles,
and if you know what the area is, it's relatively straightforward mathematics to
determine what the volume is,~ said Andy Bowen, director of the National Deep
Submergence Facility at Woods Hole.
BP representatives have spoken extensively with Woods Hole scientists about using
scientific instruments to measure the flow. But a BP spokesman, David Nicholas,
said the company has decided to focus on stopping the leak rather than measuring
it.
~I don't think an estimate of the flow rate would change either the direction or
the scale of our response to it,~ Nicholas said.
That response includes a new option that BP detailed Thursday. Engineers want to
thread a second pipe into the end of the pipe that is spewing oil and gas, very
much like inserting one drinking straw into the end of another. Ideally the
~riser insertion,~ as the option is called, would divert the oil to a barge on
the surface rather than let it pollute the gulf.
20f4
9/27/20102:02 PM
008671
BP is also finishing the plumbing on a small dome, nicknamed the "top hat," that
could be lowered onto the leak to capture the oil and pipe it to the surface.
Other options remain in the mix, none of which have ever been attempted before on
a blown-out well in such deep water.
"None of these things are certain. They're the next practical options that have
come down our conveyor belt," Nicholas said.
As the oil slick remains largely offshore, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
preparing to dredge the Mississippi River to gather sediment for creating an
emergency archipelago of barrier islands <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
/content/article/2010/05/09/AR2010050903339.html> . On Thursday evening, the Army
Corps of Engineers closed a 24-hour comment period in which federal agencies
could voice any objections to the massive barrier island restoration plan.
The slick on the surface of the gulf is a moving target for scientists trying to
estimate the rate of oil leaking nearly a mile below. It has changed sizes in
heavy seas. The oil manifests itself in a variety of forms, which are documented"
in government reports as silver sheen, transparent sheen, brown oil, tarballs and
"orange pancakes or streamers."
As of mid-week, the slick had been pounded with 428,000 gallons of chemical
dispersants dropped from a fleet of aircraft, SP spokesman Andrew Gowers said.
Thousands of gallons of dispersants have also been sprayed directly on the plume
at the sea floor in three tests. But while officials study the environmental
impact, SP must wait for permission to resume spraying at depth.
The oil emerging from the reservoir nearly four miles below the surface is on the
lighter end of the density scale, Gowers said.
"It's not thick, heavy crude that goes glop. It's light crude that when it
reaches the surface of the water, it's more like iced tea," he said.
The official number for the flow of oil from the busted well is 5,000 barrels (or
210,000 gallons) a day. That has been repeated in virtually every media report
for more than two weeks. The figure, announced April 28 by the Coast Guard, is a
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimate based on aerial imagery
early in the crisis as well as scrutiny of video from the sea bottom.
But officials have repeatedly tried to back away from the suspiciously round
figure. Jane Lubchenco <http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Jane Lubchenco> , the
NOAA administrator, told The Washington Post that the estimate should be
considered "5,000 barrels-ish."
Two weeks ago, an outside researcher, oceanographer Ian MacDonald of Florida
State University, used satellite images gathered by the organization SkyTruth to
produce an estimate of 26,000 barrels of oil a day. But MacDonaid noted that his
figure hasn't been subjected to scientific peer review.
"I shouldn't be trying to estimate these flow rates in the media; we should be
trying to do this in sci~ntific papers," he said.
News organizations, scientists and environmental groups asked BP to make public
the video of the main leak, which comes from a pipe called the riser, about 460
feet from the blowout preventer that sits atop the wellhead. BP complied
Wednesday with two short video clips, one showing the pipe spewing oil and gas
and the other capturing the moment when a containment dome was lowered onto the
leak in an abortive effort to capture the oil.
MacDonald would like BP to make more video public so researchers can have a
better idea of the nature of the leak.
30f4
9/27/201 0 2:02 PM
008672
"We're fighting a battle against this spill, this leak. Any military person knows
that good
are the key to victory," he said.
4of4
9/27/2010 2:02 PM
[Fwd: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (N1C-HQ): Q&A#3143]
008673
Subject: [Fwd: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143]

From: "Mark.WMilier" <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 08:29:32 -0700
To: Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.goV>, Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>
------ Original Message ----Subject:FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143

Date:Fri, 14 May 201010:18:46 -0500
From:Grawe, William <William.R.Grawe@USCG.MIL>
To:Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark. WMiller@noaa.gov>
CC:Offutt, Todd CDR <Todd.J.Offutt@USCG.MIL>, Tobiasz, Tim CDR <TimothyA Tobiasz@USCG.MIL>, Kayyem, Juliette <juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>
Mark .... there is now a congressional inquiry on the issue that you and David are working on ... for your awareness ...
Todd - Mark Miller (NOAA) ... and David Moore (MMS) are reaching back into their agencies to get additional clarity on the flow measurement is::
Bill
-----Original Message----From; Jones, Melinda

Sent; friday, May 14, 2010 10;35 AM
To; HQS-DG-LST-CG DCO-Incident Support Team
Cc: Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Hill, Patricia CDR; Jones, Melinda; Langum, Scott CDR: Mackenzie, Nathan LT; Mason, Robert: Mel
ephen YNCM; Hickey, Jon CDR: HQS-DG-lst-CG-821; HQS-DG-lst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR; Cunningham, Matthew CrR; Ladd, Pamela; Manzi, Kathryn; ~
Subject; FOR fLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ); Q&AH3143
Sirs/Ma' am,
Will Painter (HAC-HLS) has requested response to the below question.
Background: recent reports (one article below) are indicating that the size of the gulf oil spill might be well understated/underestimated.
TIMELINE; No later than 1400, May 19
If the requested deadline cannot be met; please provide the reason and your estimated ETA.
AS S I GNMENTS ;
(NC-HQ) Q&A #3143: What role has the CG played in estimated the flow rate of the leak?
This will allow us to manage expectations.
What role is expected of the CG in determining/veri f)-
Database Access: < file: / I / \ \hgs-r..as-t-OO 1. \CG-S\CG-82\CG-S23\He<;lr inqs\Database \QI ndex. 201 O. x! sm>
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
U. S. Coast Guard
~~1~9a.E.Jcnes@uscg.mil
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By Joel Achenbach
friday, May 14, 2010; A06
For nearly three weeks, the world has been hearing about the leaking well on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Now there's video footage, ane
But the new video clips don't clarify one of the biggest unknowns: How much oil are we looking at?
The experts say emphatically that anyone who makes an estimate of the leak by looking at the video is simply arm-waving. There are too many
\0
BP, however, could try to measure the flow directly with off-the-shelf instruments routinely used in research on deep-sea hydrothermal vents
nyou can use this type of technique to determine the velocity of the particles, and if you know what the area is , it's relatively straightfor
BP representatives have spoken extensively with Woods Hole scientists about using scientific instruments to measure the flow. But a SP spokel:
"I don't think an estimate of the flow rate would change either the direction or the scale of our response to it," Nicholas said.
That response includes a new option that SP detailed Thursday. Engineers want to thread a second pipe into the end of the pipe that is spewir
SP is also finishing the plumbing on a small dome, nicknamed the "top hat," that could be lowered onto the leak to capture the oil and pipe i
"None of these things are certain. They're the next practical options that have come down our conveyor belt," Nicholas said.
As the oil slick remains largely offshore, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing to dredge the Mississippi River to gather sediment f
The slick on the surface of the gulf is a moving target for scientists trying to estimate the rate of oil leaking nearly a mile below. It hal:
As of mid-week, the slick had been pounded with 42B, 000 gallons of chemical dispersants dropped from a fleet of aircraft, SP spokesman Andre ...
The oil emerging from the reservoir nearly four miles below the surface is on the lighter end of the density scale, Gowers said.
"It's not thick, heavy crude that goes glop. It's light crude that when it reaches the surface of the water, it's more like iced tea," he sai
The official number for the flow of oil from the busted well is 5,000 barrels (or 210,000 gallons) a day. That has been repeated in virtuall)
But officials have repeatedly tried to back away from the suspiciously round figure. Jane Lubchenco
of2
~.I:l~_~p';(.!.~..... ~.!:1C?~1.I~_~_gc!y'_... C::.~~/~':::.9"f.i.l~:>(J?:ne
9127/2010 2:02 PM
[Fwd: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143]
008674
Two weeks ago, an outside researcher, oceanographer Ian MacDonald of Florida State University, used satellite images gathered by the organiza
"I shouldn't be trying to estimate these flow rates in the media: we should be trying to do this in scientific papers," he said.
News organizations, scientists and environmental groups asked SP to make public the video of the main leak, which comes from a pipe called
tr.
MacDonald would like SP to make more video public so researchers can have a better idea of the nature of the leak.
"We're fighting a battle against this spill, this leak. Any military person knows that good casualty reports are the key to victory," he saie
20f2
9/27/20102:02 PM
Re: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143
008676
(NC-HQ) Q&A #3143: What role has the CG played in estimated the flow rate of the
leak? What role is expected of the CG in determining/verifying flow rate
estimates?
\Qlndex.2010.xlsm>
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
U. S. Coast Guard
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By Joel Achenbach
For nearly three weeks, the world has been hearing about the leaking well on the
bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Now there's video ootage, and it's not pretty,
showing a turbulent plume of oil and gas billowing from the end of a 2l-inch
pipe that dropped to the mud floor of the gulf after the April 20 explosion on
the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.
But the new video clips don't clarify one of the biggest unknowns: How much oil
are we looking at?
The experts say emphatically that anyone who makes an estimate of the leak by
looking at the video is simply arm-waving. There are too many variables. The
stuff coming out of the pipe isn't just oil, for example, but a frothing
cocktail of oil, gas, brine and sediment from miles below the sea bottom.
BP, however, could try to measure the flow directly with off-the-shelf
instruments routinely used in research on deep-sea hydrothermal vents and cold
hydrocarbon seeps, according to scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution. They said devices that can essentially take a sonogram of the plume
could be strapped to one of the robotic submarines that BP has deployed around
the damaged well.
"You can use this type of technique to determine the velocity of the particles,
and if you know what the area is, it's relatively straightforward mathematics to
determine what the volume is," said Andy Bowen, director of the National Deep
Submergence Facility at Woods Hole.
BP representatives have spoken extensively with Woods Hole scientists about
using scientific instruments to measure the flow. But a BP spokesman, David
Nicholas, said the company has decided to focus on stopping the leak rather than
measuring it.
"I don't think an estimate of the flow rate would change either the direction or
the scale of our response to it," Nicholas said.
That response includes a new option that BP detailed Thursday. Engineers want to
thread a second pipe into the end of the pipe that is spewing oil and gas, very
much like inserting one drinking straw into the end of another. Ideally the
"riser insertion," as the option is called, would divert the oil to a barge on
the surface rather than let it pollute the gulf.
BP is also finishing the plumbing on a small dome, nicknamed the "top hat," that
could be lowered onto the leak to capture the oil and pipe it to the surface.
Other options remain in the mix, none of which have ever been attempted before
20f3
9/27/20 I 0 2:02 PM
Re: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143
008677
i on a blown-out
! "None of these
well in such deep water.

things are certain. They're the next practical options that have
! come down our conveyor belt," Nicholas said.,
lAs the oil slick remains
offshore l the U.S. Army Corps of
is
I preparing to dredge the Mississippi River to gather sediment for creating an
I emergency archipelago of barrier islands <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
1 /content/article/2010/05/09/AR20l0050903339.html> . On Thursday evening, the
I Army Corps of Engineers closed a 24-hour comment period in which federal
1 agencies could voice any objections to the massive barrier island restoration
1 plan.
1 The slick on the surface of the gulf is a moving target for scientists
to
! estimate the rate of oil leaking nearly a mile below. It has changed sizes in
l heavy seas. The oil manifests itself in a variety of forms, which are documented
j in government
s as silver sheen, transparent sheen l brown oil, tarballs
1 and "orange pancakes or streamers."
lAs of mid-weekI the slick had been pounded with 428,000 gallons of chemical
I dispersants dropped from a fleet of aircraft BP spokesman Andrew Gowers said.
I Thousands of gallons of dispersants have also been sprayed directly on the plume
I at the sea floor in three tests. But while officials study the environmental
impact, BP must wait for permission to resume spraying at depth.
! The oil emerging from the reservoir nearly four miles below the surface is on
! the lighter end of the density scale l Gowers said.
! "It's not thick, heavy crude that goes glop. It's light crude that when it
i reaches the surface of the water l it's more like iced tea," he said.
i The official number for the flow of oil from the busted well is 5 / 000 barrels
(or 210,000 gallons) a day. That has been repeated in virtually every media
report for more than two weeks. The figure, announced April 28 by the Coast
Guard, is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimate based on
aerial imagery early in the crisis as well as scrutiny of video from the sea
bottom.
j But officials have
tried to back away from the suspiciously round
figure. Jane Lubchenco <http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Jane Lubchenco> , the
NOAA administrator, told The Washington Post that the estimate should be
considered "5,000 barrels-ish."
Two weeks ago, an outside researcher l oceanographer Ian MacDonald of Florida
State University, used satellite images gathered by the organization SkyTruth to
produce an estimate of 26,000 barrels of oil a day. But MacDonald noted that his
figure hasn't been subjected to scientific peer review.
"I shouldn't be trying to estimate these flow rates in the media; we should be
trying to do this in scientific papers, he said.
News organizations, scientists and environmental groups asked BP to make public
the video of the main leak, which comes from a pipe called the riser, about 460
feet from the blowout
that sits atop the wellhead. BP complied
Wednesday with two short video clips, one showing the pipe spewing oil and gas
and the other capturing the moment when a containment dome was lowered onto the
leak in an abortive effort to capture the OlL.
MacDonald would like BP to make more video public so researchers can have a
better idea of the nature of the leak.
We're fighting a battle against this spill, this leak. Any military person
knows that good casualty reports are the key to victory," he said.
l
30f3
9/27/20102:02 PM
RE: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143
008679
LCDR; Grawe, William; Guinee, Paul; Thurber, Margaret; Thuring, Allen; Grantham, Carla; Murk, David CDR;
Tobiasz, Tim CDR
> Subject: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143
>
>
> Sirs/Ma'am,
> Will Painter (HAC-HLS) has requested response to the below question.
>
> Background: recent reports (one article below) are indicating that the size of the gulf oil spill might be well
understated/underestimated.
>
>
> TI M ELI NE: No later than 1400, May 19
> If the requested deadline cannot be met; please provide the reason and your estimated ETA. This will allow
us to manage expectations.
.
>
>
> ASSIGNMENTS:
> (I\lC-HQ) Q&A #3143: What role has the CG played in estimated the flow rate of the leak? What role is
expected of the CG in determining/verifying flow rate estimates?
>
> Database Access: <file:!!!\\hqs-nas-t-001 \CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearings\Database\QI ndex.201 O.xlsm>
>
>
> vIr,
>
> Melinda E. Jones
> Informal Inquiries Manager
> External Coordination Division (CG-823)
> Office of Budget and Programs (CG-82)
> U. S. Coast Guard
>
> Melinda.E.Jones@uscg.mil
>
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 5,000 or 26,000 barrels a day: Size of gulf oil spill is a guesstimate
>
> By Joel Achenbach
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, May 14, 2010; A06
>
> For nearly three weeks, the world has been hearing about the leaking well on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.
Now there's video footage, and it's not pretty, showing a turbulent plume of oil and gas billowing from the end of
a 21-inch pipe that dropped to the mud floor of the gulf after the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon
drilling rig.
>
> But the new video clips don't clarify one of the biggest unknowns: How much oil are we looking.at?
>
> The experts say emphatically that anyone who makes an estimate of the leak by looking at the video is simply
arm-waving; There are too many variables. The stuff coming out of the pipe isn't just oil, for example, but a
frothing cocktail of oil, gas, brine and sediment from miles below the sea bottom.
>
> BP, however, could try to measure the flow directly with off-the-shelf instruments routinely used in research on
deep-sea hydrothermal vents and cold hydrocarbon seeps, according to scientists at the Woods Hole
2of4
9/27/20102:03 PM
RE: FOR FLASH ACTION (NICwHQ): Q&A#3143
008680
Oceanographic Institution. They said devices that can essentially take a sonogram of the plume could be
strapped to one of the robotic submarines that BP has deployed around the 'damaged well.
>
> "You can use this type of technique to determine the velocity of the particles, and if you know what the area is,
it's relatively straightforward mathematics to determine what the volume is," said Andy Bowen, director of the
National Deep Submergence Facility at Woods Hole.
>
> BP representatives have spoken extensively with Woods Hole scientists about using scientific instruments to
measure the flow. But a BP spokesman, David Nicholas, said the company has decided to focus on stopping the
leak rather than measuring it.
>
> "I don't think an estimate of the flow rate would change either the direction or the scale of our response to it,"
Nicholas said.
>
> That response includes a new option that BP detailed Thursday. Engineers want to thread a second pipe into
the end of the pipe that is spewing oil and gas, very much like inserting one drinking straw into the end of
another. Ideally the "riser insertion," as the option is called, would divert the oil to a barge on the surface rather
than let it pollute the gulf.
>
> BP is also finishing the plumbing on a small dome, nicknamed the "top hat," that could be lowered onto the leak
to capture the oil and pipe it to the surface. Other options remain in the mix, none of which have ever been
attempted before on a blownwout well in such deep water.
>
> "No,ne of these things are certain. They're the next practical options that have come down our conveyor belt,"
Nicholas said.
>
> As the oil slick remains largely offshore, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing to dredge the
Mississippi River to gather sediment for creating an emergency archipelago of barrier islands
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpwdynicontent/article/2010/05/09/AR2010050903339.html> . On Thursday
evening, the Army Corps of Engineers closed a 24 whour comment period in which federal agencies could voice
any objections to the massive barrier island restoration plan.
>
> The slick on the surface of the gulf is a moving target for scientists trying to estimate the rate of oil leaking
nearly a mile below. It has changed sizes in heavy seas. The oil manifests itself in a variety of forms, which are
documented in government reports as silver sheen, transparent sheen, brown oil, tarballs and "orange pancakes
or streamers. "
>
> As of mid-week, the slick had been pounded with 428,000 gallons of chemical dispersants dropped from a
fleet of aircraft, BP spokesman Andrew Gowers said. Thousands of gallons of dispersants have also been
sprayed directly on the plume at the sea floor in three tests. But while officials study the environmental impact,
BP must wait for permission to resume spraying at depth.
>
> The oil emerging from the reservoir nearly four miles below the surface is on the lighter end of the density
scale, Gowers said.
> "It's not thick, heavy crude that goes glop. It's light crude that when it reaches the surface of the water, it's
more like iced tea," he said.

>
> The official number for the flow of oil from the busted well is 5,000 barrels (or 210,000 gallons) a day. That
has been repeated in virtually every media report for more than two weeks. The figure, announced April 28 by
the Coast Guard, is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimate based on aerial imagery early
in the crisis as well as scrutiny of video from the sea bottom.
>
> But officials have repeatedly tried to back away from the suspiciously round figure. Jane Lubchenco
<http://www.whorunsgov.comlProfiles/Jane Lubchenco> , the NOAA administrator, told The Washington Post
that the estimate should be considered "5,000 barrels-ish."
>
> Two weeks ago, an outside researcher, oceanographer Ian MacDonald of Florida State University, used
3 of4
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
008681
satellite images gathered by the organization SkyTruth to produce an estimate of 26,000 barrels of oil a day. But
MacDonald noted that his figure hasn't been subjected to scientific peer review.
>
> "I shouldn't be trying to estimate these flow rates in the media; we should be trying to do this in scientific
papers," he said.
>
> News organizations, scientists and environmental groups asked BP to make public the video of the main leak,
which comes from a pipe called the riser, about 460 feet from the blowout preventer that sits atop the wellhead.
BP complied Wednesday with two short video clips, one showing the pipe spewing oil and gas and the other
capturing the moment when a containment dome was lowered onto the leak in an abortive effort to capture the
oil.
>
> MacDonald would like BP to make more video public so researchers can have a better idea of the nature of
the leak.
>
> "We're fighting a battle against this spill, this leak. Any military person knows that good casualty reports are
the key to victory," he said.
>
>
>
>
>
40f4
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
008682
Subject: [Fwd: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&.0#3143]

Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:34:16 -0700
To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Heads up on Congressional Inquiry on the release rate question.
Here is the text from an ADM Allen interview this AM on CNN where responded to a direct question on this QUESTION: Admiral, there are some conflicting reports on the amount of oil that is coming out at the soene after looking at that BP \/ideo yesterday. There
are some university experts that are saying that there is no way in the world that can just be 5,000 barrels a day. It has to be much high are than that. Are
you still standing by your estimates? Or are you seeing a fluctuation ALLEN: Well, I'm glad you asked the question. Let's talk about estimates. We first thought it was 1,000 barrels and then we thought it was 5,000 barrels.
Frankly. whether it was one or five or 10 or 15. our mobilization of resouroes are for something far beyond that because wa're always prepared for a
catastrophic event.
So we've not been constrained in our planning. or our resources or our tactics by the flow estimates and I would urge us all to remember we're operating in
an environment where there is no human access. The only parameters we have are a two-dimensional video presentation and remote sensing we can do
down there. So while all of that goes on and ultimately we're going to have to know the extent of the spill for national resource damage assessments and
other things.
But as far as a current response. we're on top of everything on the surface and doing a great deal to break this slick up and deal with it off shore so you
don't have the impacts here. I think that needs to continue but as far as how we're actually conducting the response, that can run its course. We're attacking
this as it was a much larger spill anyway.
---- Original Message - - Subject:FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3143

Date:Fri, 14 May 2010 10:18:46 -0500
From:Grawe, William <William.R.Grawe@USCG.MIL>
To:Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC:Offutt, Todd CDR <Todd.J.Offutt@USCG.MIL>, Tobiasz, TIm CDR <TImothyA Tobiasz@USCG.MIL>, Kayyem. Juliette <juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>
Mark .... there is now a congressional inquiry on the issue that you and David are working on ... for your awareness . .
Todd - Mark Miller (NOAA) ... and David Moore (MMS) are reaching back into their agencies to get additional clarity on the flow measurement
is~
Bill
14,201010:35lIM
HOl;-DG-I,ST-CG DCO-Incident Support Team

Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Hill .. Patricia CDR; Jones, Melinda; Lang-urn, Scott; CDR;
YNCM; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-lst-CG-821; HQS-DG-lst-CG-822; Coe, 5hannah CTR; Cunningham, Matthew CTR;
FOR FLASH ACTION (NlC-HQl: Q&Aft3143
Nathan LT; Mason, Robert; Me!
Pamela; Manzi, Kathryn;
I'
Sirs/Ma I am,
Will Painter (HAC-ilLS) has requested response to the below question.
Background: recent reports (one article below) are indicating that the size of the gulf oil spill might be well understated/underestimated.
TIMELINE: No later than 1400, Nay 19
i\.SS IGNMENTS :
mC-HQl (l&A 83143: What role has tne CG played in estimateo the flow rate of the leak?
What role is expected of the CG in determinin9/verif,
Datahase Access: <hIe: / / /\ \hqs-nas-t-'lOl \CG-e\CG-8Z\CG-823\Hearings\Databcse\Qlndex.2010 .xlsm>

vir,
Melinda E. Jones
Office of Budget ano Programs (CG-B2)
U, S. Coast Guard
usca.mil
+~++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++t++++++++
5,000 or 26,000 barrels a day: 5i,e of gulf oil spill is a guesstimate

By Joel Achenbach
Washington ~O$t Staff Writer
For nearly three weeks, the world has been hearing about the leaking well on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Now there's vioeo footage, anc
But the new video clips don't clarify one of the biggest unknowns: How much oil are we looking at?
The experts say emphatically that anyone who makes an estimate of the leak by looking at the video is simply arm-waving, There are too many'
10f2
9/27/20102:03 PM
008683
BF" however I could try to measure the flow directly with off-the-shelf instruments routinely used in research on deep-sea hydrothermal vents
"You can use this type of technique to determine the velocity of the particles, and if you know what the area is , it's relatively straightfoI
BP representatives have spoken extensively with Woods Hole scientists about using scientific instruments to measure the flow. But a BP
spoke~
"1 don't think an estimate of the flow rate wot:ld change either the direction or the scale of our response to it," Nicholas said.
That response includes a new option that BP detailed Thursday. Engineers want to thread a second pipe into the end of the pipe that is spewir
SP is also finishing the plumbing on a small dome, nicknamed the Ittop hat," that could be lowered onto the leak to capture the oil and pipe
"None of these things are certain. They're the next practical options that have come down our conveyor belt," Nicholas said.
As the oil slick remains largely offshore t
the U.S. Army Corps of Enqinee=s is preparing to dredge the Mississippi River to gather sediment t
The slick on the surface of the gulf is a moving target for scientists trying to estimate the rate of oil leaking nearly a mile below. It
ha~
As of" mid-week, the slick had been pounded with 428 t 000 gallons of chemical dispersants dropped froln a fleet of aircraft t SF spokesman Andre\>
The oil emerging from the reservoir nearly four miles below the surface is on the lighter end of the density scale, Gower's said.
'IIt's not thickt heavy crude that goes glop. Itls light crude that when it reaches the surface of the water, it's more like iced teal" he sal
The official number for the flow of oil from the Dusted well is 5,000 barrels lor 210,000 gallons) a day. That has been repeated in virtualli
But officials have repeatedly tried to back away from the suspiciously round figure. Jane Lubchenco
(htt'D:I/www~whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Jane
Two weeks ago, an outside researcher, oceanographer Ian MacDonald of Florida State University, used satellite images gathered by the
"I shouldn't be trying to estimate these flow rates in the media; we should be trying to do this in scientific papers t
"
or9aniz~
he said.
News organizations, sClentists and environmental groups asked SP to make public the video of the main leak; which COmes from a pipe called tt
MacDonald would like BP to make more video public so researchers can have a better idea of tbe nature of the leak.
"We're fighting a battle against this spill, this leak, Any mil.l.tary person knows that good casualty reports are the key to victory,lt he saie
2of2
9/27/20lO 2:03 PM
008684
Draft Oil Discharge Rate Estimation Discussion
Subject: Draft Oil Discharge Rate Estimation Discussion

Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:02:15 -0700
To: Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>,
Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>
I have not been given a specific target audience but prepared this topic for
general NIC staff.
I grabbed a bunch of Doug's oil budget document and added ADM Allen's statement. I
did not include what we could do to get another estimate of the discharge rate. I
have heard rumors that BP is now starting a project to estimate the flow rate from
the leaks.
Mark
Content-Type:
application/msword
Release Rate Estimation DiscussionV1.doc C
.
b 64
ontent-Encodmg: ase
1 ofl
."
"
"
9/27/20102:03 PM
008685
Release Rate Estimation Discussion

Deepwater Horizon (Mississippi Canyon 252) Incident
The current oil discharge rate estimate was developed in conjunction with BP
and USCG. The rate was based on surface expression of the spill using guides
included in the Bonn Agreement. The agreement's Oil Appearance Code was
developed by European Countries as the standard method for assessing the
volume of oil on water. This framework is included in NOAA documents such as
our Open water job aid:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book shelf/1462 FI NAL%200WJA%20200
7.pdf.
Estimating oil spill volume by visual appearance is an approximation at best. The
5000 bbl/day number is understood by all involved to be a working number and is
not the definitive estimate of the spill rate. In addition, estimating the oil discharge
rate using the surface appearance is no longer a viable option due to the size of
the area impacted as well as the lack of knowledge of the specific effectiveness
for the skimming, in situ burning, and dispersant activities.
It is important to remember though that the discharge rate has had no effect on
the present operational tempo. The response has always been an all out effort
and a different release rate would not have resulted in different operational
decisions.
Admiral Allen, The National Incident Commander, commented on this issue on a
news interview on May 14 while visiting Louisiana. When asked about the
different estimates he responded "Frankly, whether it was one or five or 10 or
15, our mobilization of resources are for something far beyond that because
we're always prepared for a catastrophic event. So we've not been constrained in
our planning, or our resources or our tactics by the flow estimates and I would
urge us all to remember we're operating in an environment where there is no
human access. The only parameters we have are a two-dimensional video
presentation and remote sensing we can do down there. So while all of that goes
on and ultimately we're going to have to know the extent of the spill for national
resource damage assessments and other things."
Other experts are certainly free to make their own scientific assessment and
estimations for the discharge rate. Depending on the assumptions used for such
factors as patchiness, oil evaporation, emulsification, dispersion, and other
natural processes that spread and weather the oil, one could calculate a very
different number. We do not believe that a different estimate would change the
posture of the operational response.
Jotted Down Thoughts
008686
Subject: Jotted Down Thoughts

Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 17:19:52 -0700
To: Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm
<Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>
I arrived on Friday May 7 and was joined by Ralph Lopez of NMFS. The Interagency
Solutions Workgroup was stood up and continued to fill out last week. For makeup I
sent a POC list to Beth and David.
Being a brand new concept the group took most of last week to start to develop an
efficient rhythm and information flow. Obviously that is still under construction.
As it stands now 0800 UC Situation Call
0845 - Briefed on NIC Priorities of the Day
0915 - Governors Call
0930
Agency Issues/Assignments -
11 : 00 - NRT Call
1500
Status on NIC priority items
1630 - Report Out

We are also starting daily briefs by the Strategic Planning Section (CAPT Haynes)
In addition to those I try to connect to our SSC call at 12:30 and more
importantly the Operations call at 1800.
Last week many of the NIC
involvement.
had significant NOAA interest and need of
In no particular order Oil Budget

Rate
Barrier Island Proposal
Seafood Contamination
Longterm Modeling
"Worse" case planning
Potential Oil Impacts on Cuba
Dispersant and Dispersant Use - Subsea focus
In addition to NIC priorities there are constant requests for NOAA related
information by NIC support staff - special products such as the Loop Current and
oil location and one-pagers on various spill related
Ralph and I split things up as efficiently as possible. For instance he took the
seafood issue and the Barrier Island Proposal (that was my day to fight the Oil
Budget fight). We sit next to each other and make sure we know (by email as well
as talking) what each is doing. Ralph and I get briefed at 8:45 on NIC priorities
for the day. We will then write these up as bullets and send to the "HQ Deep Water
Horizon Staff" email (or any other desired email list). At the same time could
someone do the same from the Senior leadership meeting at 8:00 for us? In
addition, Ralph and I will be very proactive to ensure any issue that comes up at
the NICC that may have interest to NOAA leadership will be forwarded through the
lof2
9/27/20102:03 PM
Jotted Down Thoughts
008687
same notification.
2of2
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
FW: NIC Interagency Solutions Workgroup (IASG) 5117 bullets
008693
NIC DC Interagency Workgroup
Content-Description: image002.jpg
image002.jpg Content-Type:
Content-Encoding:
300
image/jpeg
base64
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
[Fwd: 18 May NGA shapefiles and graphic]
008696
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Extent as of 18 May

Gulf of Mexico, United States
Oil and gas platfonnlrig
~ Delta National Wildlife Refuge
. . . 00 spill extent aso118 May2010
. . . Oil spill extent as of 17 May 201 0
o
o
'11_
Content-Type:
application/x-zip-compressed
Extent 0518 UFOUO 0300AM,zip C
E
d'
b 64
ontent- nco mg: ase
- GOM_20100421_Deepwater_Horizon_20100518_0300AM.,ipg----------------
30f4
9/27/20102:03 PM
[Fwd: 18 May NGA shapefiJes and graphic]
008697
'-~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~===---~~c~o-n=t~en~t=-T=y~p~e-:~~im-a~g~e~~-p-eg-
GOM_20100421_Deepwater_Horizon_20100518_0300AM.jpg Content-Encoding: base64
40f4
9/27/20102:03 PM
008698
Fw: EPA personnel for workgroups to support USCG NIC - BP Oil Spill
Subject: Fw: EPA personnel for workgroups to support USCG NIC - BP Oil Spill
From: mjoness. mark@epamail.epa.gov
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 08:23:04 -0400
cc: Knoy.Jim@epamail.epa.gov
Mark:
FYI
Working on getting work group members.
Knoy and I will handle the
Dispersants group.
Let's get together on the groups.
Mark
Mark Mjoness, Director

National Planning and preparedness Division
Office of EmergEncy Management
(OEM)
US EPA HQ, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 510QA

Washington DC, 20460
Web: htto:! /www.epa.cov/emergencies!

Email: mjoness.mark~epa.90v
----- Forwarded by Mark Mjoness/DC/OSEPA/US on 05/19/2010 09:20 AM -----
1------------>
1 From:
I
1------------>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
IGilberto Irizarry/DC
/USEPAIUS
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1------------>1
! To:
1------------>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
ICraig Matthiessen/DC/OSEPA
IUS@EPA
,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1------------,
1 Ce:
I
1------------>
,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
IMark Mjoness/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Dana Tulis/DC/OSEPA/US@EPA, Jim Knoy/DC/USEPA
IOS@EPA
>- --- - - --- - - -- -- - - - - - - --- - -- --- -- --- - - - - - -- -- -------- -- - -- - - - - - -- - --- -------- -- - -- - ---- -- --- ----- - - - -- - - - - -- - -- --------- - - - - - - - - - - ------- 1
1------------>I
I Date:
1------------>
>- - - -- - -- - - - - - ------ -- - - - - -- -- - - -- -- ----- -- -- - --- - -- - - - ---------- - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- --- - --- -- --- - - -- -- ---- -- -- -- - -- - - - - - - -- -- - -- -- - - - - ---- -- - 1
105/17/201006:50
PM
>-- - -- -- -- -- - - - - - -- - - - ---- -- -- -- - - - - - -- - - -- - ----- ---- - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - -- ---- -- - -- - - --- -- -- - -- - -- -- -- - - -- - - - -- ---- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- --- ---- - 1
1------------>
1 Subject:
1
1------------>
>- - - - - - -- -------- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - -- -- -- - - - - - -- ---- --- -- -- -- - - - -- - - -- -- - -- -- --- - - - - - - - ---- - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - 1
IEPA personnel for workgroups to support USCG Nrc - SF Oil

Spill
,- - -- - - - - - - - -- -- - --- ----- -- - - - - - - --- - - -- -~ - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- - -- ----- -- -- -- - -- - - - -- -------- -- -- - - -- - - - - --- -- - ----- -- ---- - - -- - ------ -- ---- -- - - 1
Craig:
Following up on our phone conversation a couple of minutes ago.
Below
you'll See a short excerpt from a prior Mark M. e-mail which briefly
describes the workgroups being put together. As you can see mentioned
below, the folks that get identified to participate can do so virtually
fie., by phone). As we also discussed, once you've identified and the
personnel, Mark M. is more than willing to do a conference call with
them to provide a basic overview of how this will work and to bring
folks up to speed, as much as possible, on this overall effort. 1111 be
glad to assist on this as well.
As mentioned, I believe (and Mark should chime in) that you should look
primarily at personnel for groups no. 1 and no. 3. A whole lot of work
is already being done here tHQ EOC) about the sub-sea dispersant effort
and we may just need to figure out a way to keep Mark and Jim up to
speed with that particular work. Also, I understand from Dana T~ that
Mathy s. is trying to get the leadership at this Interagency solutions
Work9roup to do away with the "Sub-sea Dispersant Team" one. Not sure
where that stands.
Thanks,
Gilberto "Tito" Irizarry
Pr09ram Operations & Coordination Division, Director
10f2
9/27/20102:03 PM
008699
Fw: EPA personnel for workgroups to support USCG NrC - BP Oil Spill
Office of Emergency Management
US Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters

Fax:
(202) 564-8333
Need your advice/decision on who SPA would like to have participate as

technical experts on the following three workgroups being formed up here
at the NIC.
The workgroups' members
can be virtual participants.
The
three workgroups are:

Ii
Flow Rate Technical Group_
This group will look at the amount of
oil being produced as well as the disposition of the oil (oil budget discharge rate: emulsification -(evaporation+dissolution+natural
dispersion) - (burning + skimming) - chemical dispersion) + amount 00
surface + shoreline
sedimentation.
2)
Sub-sea Dispersant Team - chemical composition of the dispersant,
monitoring results tor volume of oil dispersed and transport and
characteristics of dispersed oil plume, and exposure and effect to
marine resources.
Sea food safety is included in this group~
3)
Loop Current - -Fate and effects of surface and subsurface
non-dispersed oil.
2of2
Sea food is also a concern of this group
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
008700
Subject: RE: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3165

From: "Pond, Robert" <Robert.G.Pond@uscg.mil>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 11 :32:38 -0400
To: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit <NIC-HQ-Situation-Unit@uscg.mil>
CC: "Banuelos, Cecilio LCDR" <Cecilio.Banuelos@uscg.mil>, "Offutt, Todd CDR"
<Todd.J.Offutt@uscg.mil>, "Miller, Eric CDR" <Eric.J.Miller2@uscg.mil>, Mark MillerNOM <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, david.moore@mms.gov
All efforts at and in the sub-sea vicinity of the well head have previously been
directed primarily at
Establishing positive control of the well. There have been 10 ROVs engaged in
that effort to date focused primarily on well control. With the current success
in reducing the outflow using the Riser Insertion Tool, the Unified Area Command
and the NIC have established a Flow Rate Technical Team which will enlist the
support of all appropriate science and technology tools to produce detailed very
accurate and scientifically defensible estimates of the quantities of oil
released throughout the spill event. The capabilities of the Woods Hole vessels
to contribute to that quantification will be assessed as part of that effort and
we will seek to employ them if they are needed.
-----Original Message----From: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit

Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:54 AM
To: Pond, Robert
Cc: Banuelos, Cecilio LCDR; Offutt, Todd CDR
Subject: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3165
Importance: High
Bob,
CDR Offutt stated the response should be in to the NIC by 1200 so it can clear
legal.
R\ LT Bailey
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 6:54 AM
To: HQS-DG-LST-CG DCO-Incident Support Teami HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit:
Offutt, Todd CDR: Tobiasz, Tim CDR
Cc: Burns, David CDR: Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Hill, Patricia
CDR: Jones, Melinda; Langum, Scott CDR; Mackenzie, Nathan LT; Mason, Robert;
McLaughlin, Daniel CDR: Morrison, Stephanie LCDR; Offutt, Todd CDR; Warren,
Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; St. John, Jordan; Wright,
Howard CDR; Collins, Laura CDR; Derian, Matthew LT: Lauzon, Michelle CTR;
Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPT: Didominicus, Lou: Re, Joseph CAPT;
Bouziane, Michele LCDRi Chaney, William CAPT: Goad, Michael: Latham, Dee;
Lobsinger, Eric LT: Smith, Beverly; Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sandra: Celestin,
Peggy; Vaughn, Roger; Amidon, Dalei Armstrong, Richard LTi Bromell, Roberti
Covert, Justin LTi Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn, Patrick CAPT; Hannigan, Sean LCDRi
Harker, Thomas CDRi Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR; Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John
CDR; Keffer, Benjamin LT; Mohr, Kevin CDR; Niemiec, Jack CAPT; Petty, Lee CDR;
Rodriguez, Paul LCDRi Thompson, Robert CDR; Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Dykema,
Stephen YNCM; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-Ist-CG-821; HQS-DG-lst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah
CTRi Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela; Manzi, Kathryn; Martyn, David CTR;
McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William CTRi Smith, Derek LCDRi hqs-dg-lst-dcms-82;
HQS-DG-Ist-CG-DCO-A-SPi Medina, Lizettei Montgomery, Patrick LTi Thompson,
Matthew LCDR; Grawe, Williami Guinee, Pauli Thurber, Margaret; Thuring, Allen;
lof2
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
008701
Grantham, Carla
Subject: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A*3165
Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
Toby Dolan of Rep Wasserman Schultz's staff has requested responses to the below
questions.
ASSIGNMENTS:
(NIC-HQ) *3165: Rep Wasserman Schultz would like to know why the research vessels
with acoustic measuring capability out of Woods Hole, MA Oceanographic Institute
have not been called in to measure flow-rate?
Database Access: <fi 1 e://I\\hgs-nas-t-001\CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearings\Database
\QIndex.2010.xlsm>
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
U. S. Coast Guard
2of2
9/27/20102:03 PM
Fwd: Version 1 of Sub-surface sampling strategy
008704
Subject: Fwd: Version 1 of Sub-surface sampling strategy

From: Robert,Pavia@noaa,gov
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 06:16:00 -0700
To: Mark.WMiller@ooaa,gov
Subject: Version 1 of Sub-surface sampling strategy

From: Samuel Walker <Sam. Walker@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 15:47:02 -0500
To: "Zdenka S. Willis" <Zdenka.S,Willis@noaa,gov>
CC: Suzanne Skelley <Suzanne,Skelley@noaa.gov>, Gary C Matlock <Gary.C,Matlock@noaa.gov>, Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov, Jack Harlan
<Jack.Hartan@noaa.gov>, Robert Pavia <Robert.Pavia@ooaa,gov>, Mark W Miller <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>, Charlie Henry <Charlie,Heory@noaa.gov>,
"Michele A Finn" <MicheleAFinn@noaa.gov>
AllThis document should be sufficient to answer the immediate reqvest from the Administrator. Thanks to all for the great short-term input.
Recognize this is a work in progress, so now that we have time to breathe let's revisit elements.
Have tried to incorporate all the concerns that were raised during our afternoon call. Dr. Robinson's point about science
laced throughout. Have also removed or softened any assumptions about the specific behavior of this plume. Hope ltve done
those points.
Budget has been removed for now, as the primary message is that this issue is being coordinated and understood on-site.
I'll keep everyone posted with updates and requirements from the theater.
Bob's input on the three time horizons for a NOAA science mission were very helpful - that is a great way to think a.bout this situation.
There are very pressing immediate needs and then some that we can sort out over t~e next few days or week.
I have included the initial NMFS elements, and also a.ttached a more comprehensive plan forwarded: by Bonnie Pnwith (NMfS) for potential
review by Dr. Lubchenco.

Best regardsS.m
Samual ? Walker. PhD

Senior Technlcal Data Manager
N01>.A Integrated Ocean Observing System (rOOS) Program
1100 Wayna
Silver Sprlng(
Scite 1225
20910
301. 427.2450
office
301.427.2073 -
fax
603.807.1189 - mobile
. . --..
.,
Content-TYPe:
messagelrfc822
Version 1 of SUb-SUrfa. ce sampling strategy.emi:. C t
E
d'
7bit
.
i on ent- nco mg:
.
'
I
----------------~---~
,
.
Content-Type:
applicationlvnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Manne Mammals SEFSC OR&R.docx C
t I:
d'
b e64
onten ....nco Ing: as
Integrated Sub-5urface Samping Plan for Deepwater Response 18 May 2010 Vi.doc>< ..
....
'" ......
...
.. 'I'"
application/vnd,openxmlformats-
ntegrated Sub-Surface Sampling Plan for Deepwater Response - 18 May 2010 _V1.docx! Content-Type:
officedocumenl.wordprocessingml.docum
ContentEncoding: base64
lofl
9/27/20102:03 PM
008705
Evaluating impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Incident on Endangered and

Protected Marine Mammals in the Mississippi Canyon region
Background and impacts on marine mammals
The Deepwater Horizon incident at the Mississippi Canyon 252 site resulted in the discharge of
an extensive oil spill within a region of high density and diversity of protected marine mammals.
Since April 28 th , aerial surveys have been conducted in this area documenting the presence of
spenn whales that are listed as endangered under the ESA. In addition numerous species of
marine mammals protected under the MMPA occur in the region. Aerial surveys have verified
the presence of pantropical spotted dolphins, striped dolphins, spinner dolphins, bottlenose
dolphins, and Risso's dolphins within or near the oil spill. A small, isolated population of
Bryde's whales resides along the continental shelf break just east of the spill area, and this
population is likely to be impacted by oil in the coming weeks.
The effects of oil on marine mammals are not well understood. However, it is probable that
spenn whales and other protected marine mammals encountering oiled environments experience
potential detrimental effects due to skin contact, inhalation of hydrocarbon vapors, and ingestion
of oil (Geraci 1990). It is unknown whether or not prolonged exposure would result in direct
mortality of individual animals. It seems most probable that the most direct effect of severe
habitat degradation related to the spill will be a shift in spatial distribution by these highly mobile
predators. The area near the spill is a high-use habitat for these species, and this is likely
associated with concentration of prey resources. Thus, a distribution shift will likely result in the
movement of animals out of a primary feeding habitat to areas with lower prey densities, and this
may have impacts on survival and productivity of the populations. In the longer tenn, it is likely
that the marine mammal populations of the northern Gulf of Mexico will be exposed to chronic
impacts of the spill due to increased concentrations of contaminants or toxins in the food web.
In addition to the oil released at the well site, several hundred thousand gallons of oil dispersant
chemicals have been deployed within the spill region. The composition and toxic effects of the
dispersants are unknown, and their impacts on marine mammals within the spill area are
uncertain. As with the oil impacts, the probable impacts of chemical dispersants on marine
mammals include acute exposure due to contact or inhalation, shift in distribution away from a
primary feeding habitat, and longer-tenn exposure through accumulation in the food web.
NMFS requirements under the ESA and MMPA
Under both the ESA and the MMPA, the NMFS is required to assess the magnitude of human
impacts on protected species and their habitats. In particular, under the ESA NMFS is required to
detennine the number of takes of endangered spenn whales and assess the impact of these takes
on the recovery of this population. Under the MMPA, incidental takes of marine mammals are
prohibited except where small numbers of takes are pennitted or in the case of incidental serious
injury or mortality during commercial fishing operations. Thus, NMFS is obligated under these
two acts to 1) assess the level of takes of endangered spenn whales and other protected marine
mammals, and 2) evaluate the potential impact of these takes on the recovery of these protected
specIes.
008706
Data needed to meet ESA and MMP A requirements

To meets the obligations of the Acts, NMFS must determine 1) the incidence and extent of
exposure to oil and chemicals for protected marine mammals and 2) the potential harm to these
species through mortality, distribution shifts, habitat degradation, and chronic accumulation of
pollutants. Direct quantification of mortality is unlikely to be possible in this offshore marine
environment since most dead animals will not be observed. Longer term chronic effects can only
be fully evaluated if there is a sufficient amount of baseline information to compare to future
results.
We propose a vessel-based study of sperm whales and other protected marine mammals in the
deep-water habitats of the north-central Gulf of Mexico impacted by the oil spill. The study will
provide critical information on the acute effects of the spill and develop a baseline of information
with which to evaluate longer-term chronic effects. The objectives of the study are to:
1) Evaluate the incidence of exposure to oil and other chemicals
2) Assess changes in animal distribution correlated to oil exposure
3) Develop baseline information on population demographics and tissue contaminants in
endangered sperm whales
4) Assess the spatial distribution of prey resources and habitat features in the region of the
spill
Meeting these objectives will provide initial information required to assess the acute and chronic
impacts of this event on marine mammal populations.
Proposed Activity
The Southeast Fisheries Science Center, in cooperation with the Minerals Management Service,
propose to conduct a 52-day survey of the deep waters of the north-central Gulf of Mexico
focusing on the high-use areas for Sperm whales other protected marine mammals currently
impacted by the spill and anticipated to be impacted over the next several months. The major
research activities of the survey include:
1) Conduct visual and passive acoustic line transect surveys of marine mammals within the
region.
2) Collect tissue biopsy samples from the vessel bow and a small boat
3) Collect demographic information on sperm whales including size, sex ratio, reproductive
status, and numbers of calves within the focal area
4) Deploy passive acoustic buoys to collect data on marine mammal occurrence
008707
5) Collect environmental data including acoustic assessment of prey density and

distribution.
These research activities will address the study objectives enumerated above.
1) Evaluate the incidence of exposure to oil
Visual and passive acoustic line transect surveys will quantify the abundance and
spatial distribution of marine mammals within the spill area and adjacent regions.
These data can be compared to the known distribution of oil to assess the number
and species composition of exposed marine mammals.
Analyses of collected tissues from biopsy samples can be used to evaluate acute
exposure to oil using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis to
determine CYPIA expression as a biomarker for oil-related contaminant (PAH)
exposure.
Photo-documentation during visual surveys or close approaches of sperm whales
by a small boat will evaluate the incidence of skin lesions or other external
evidence of injury associated with exposure.
2) Assess changes in animal distribution correlated to oil exposure

Acoustic monitoring buoys will be deployed to monitor changes in animal
distribution over a period of 3-4 months at selected sites. This study will include
the High-frequency Acoustic Recording Package (HARP) which is capable of
monitoring up to 100 kHz sounds for 110 days continuously; it can provide a
detailed record of the presence of sperm whales, beaked whales and dolphins (the
most likely animals to be present in the spill area). Deployment sites will be
chosen to monitor animal movements at the spill site and at control sites
Data collected during the survey on marine mammal habitat and spatial
distribution can be compared to similar data collected during the spring of2004
and the summers of 2003 and 2009 to determine if the observed distribution
during the spill event is significantly different from that observed in prior years,
accounting for the effects of environmental variability.
3) Develop baseline information on population demographics and tissue contaminants in

endangered sperm whales
During close approaches for biopsy sample collection, photographic methods will
be used to measure the size distribution of sperm whales and quantify the
numbers of calves within the region.
Genetic analysis of skin from biopsy samples can be used to determine the gender
of sampled animals and estimate the sex-ratio of the popUlation. In addition,
analysis of blubber from tissue samples can be conducted to quantify reproductive
hormone levels.
008708
Blubber samples from sperm whales and other species will be stored for analysis
of contaminant levels. These will be used to establish baselines for comparison to
later studies.
4) Assess the distribution of prey resources and habitat features in the region of the spill
Scientific echo sounders (SimRad EK60 at frequencies of38 and 120 kHZ) will be
used throughout the cruise to quantify the spatial distribution of secondary
production within the spill area and adjacent regions.
Ancillary environmental data on the vertical and horizontal distribution of
hydrographic variables (e.g., temperature, salinity, flouresence) throughout the
survey to characterize the habitats of marine mammals in the region.
Resource Requirements
The study requires a large research vessel with the capability to collect passive and active
acoustic data, support visual observations of marine mammals, deploy a small boat, and collect
additional environmental data. Staffing requirements are 11-13 scientific staff with experience
in marine mammal survey methods including biopsy collection. The timing of the study is
critical, and thus must be initiated in the short-term, no later than the first week of June 2010.
This proposal focuses on the collection of data and deployment of equipment for long-term
monitoring. The analytical costs to process biopsy samples after the survey are not included in
this request. In addition, the costs of the passive acoustic monitoring equipment, and the
associated data analysis, are not included here. These will be requested in separate proposals.
Cost estimate
Vessel cost
52 Days at Sea @14kper day:
728,000
Operations Cost
Contract Staff Costs (11 staff):
FTE Staff(OT and Base, 2FTEs):
Equipment and Supplies:
Small Vessel Costs:
264,000
28,800
18,000
9,800
Project Management. Data management, and Data analysis

FTE Staff (l.5)
195,000
Total Cost Estimate:
$1,243,600
008709
9/27/2010 8:08 PM
Coordinated Sampling Strategy to Map and Characterize the Vertical

and Horizontal Disposition of any Submerged Oil Plume(s) Arising
from the Deep Water Horizon (DWH) Spill (v1) .
The primary objectives of this subwsurface sampling strategy are to:
1. Establish where the subsurface oil is located within the water column and how is it
changing over time; and
2. Understand the effects of the subsurface oil, especially in deep water. This would
certainly be from an ecosystem perspective, but will need to consider species and
communities at risk and effects of oil/dispersed oil.
Principal Sub-surface Sampling Plan Elements:
1. Definition of Requirements
2. Validation of Sampling Techniques
3. Identification and Deployment of Platforms and Sensors
4. Mapping, Modeling, and Analysis (including biological component)
5. Data Management and Logistics
For each of these elements the proposed approach and current status are provided. Strategy
elements will be updated based on transition from immediate response needs to longer
term monitoring - this document is based on knowledge to-date.
Definition of Requirements
Approach - Recognizing the three principal time horizons (primary: response; intermediate:
damage assessment; and long-term: research/monitoring) this sub-surface sampling effort is
being coordinated across the unified response. Prior to the identification or deployment of
sampling assets the actual needs must be defined.
Current Status - Operational requirements have already been determined for the response
efforts, based on input from the NOAA response teams, unified command, Responsible Party
(BP), and contracted responders. These immediate needs include:
o
o
o
o
o
Establishing presence or absence of oil through the water column;

Quantifying concentration and composition of oil and particle size in the water column;
Producing temperature profiles and salinity gradients through the water column;
Mapping any oil plume boundaries through direct observations and measures; and
Forecasting movement and changes of any oil plume(s).
The intermediate and longer-term sampling requirements include assessment of impacts to the.
biological community and society and will be addressed using a comprehensive ecosystembased approach. These needs can be more clearly defined by the research community,
including the NOAA Research Council.
008710
9/27/20108:08 PM
Validation of Sampling Techniques and Initial Mapping
Approach - Before any major deployments occur the sampling strategy will be guided by an
immediate validation effort designed to identify the optimal methods for detecting and
characterizing any sub-surface oil. Optimally, this validation effort would take place from a
research vessel with the ability to tow and deploy a range of in situ sensors, in combination with
water sample collection and analysis. Once speCific observing techniques have been validated
(and others precluded), decision can be made about subsequent sensors and appropriate
platforms for those payloads.
A recommended approach includes deploying a research vessel on site near the wellhead to
~onduct a series of validation measurements. It is likely that there are characteristic signatures
of subsurface plumes in the acoustic backscatter profile (strong signal returns from the oil at
frequencies < 30 kHz - see http://www.aoml.noaa.govJocdJixtocllxtoc home.htm for information
about use of this technology during the Ixtoc spill) and in the vertical temperature profile and
that can be used as proxy measures of the plume. It is suspected this is a signature of the
plume. The vessel needs to execute validation studies to understand how this and other proxies
(e.g., presence of thermostad) could be used.
If such proxies are validated it will permit relatively inexpensive and widely available
technologies to be used to more completely map out the plume. Platforms could include a
number of gliders, AUVs, and probes. The plume, if it exists, may cover an extensive footprint
and be complicated in shape (Le., not a simple ellipse). Should these proxies be found to not
be reliable an alternative mapping effort will need to be undertaken that uses more sophisticated
techniques (optical or chemical) that will take longer to mobilize and which will likely progress
more slowly. Coordination of the assets used in the mapping and analysis of the observations
will be supported by regional oceanographic experts.
Once an initial mapping of the plume is accomplished circulation models can be used to
forecast plume growth and movement. Neutral buoyancy floats could be used to seed the
plume in select locations to provide regular tracking.
One potential analysis team is the Geochemical and Environmental Research Group (GERG) at
Texas A&M who could conduct detailed hydrocarbon analyses and the NOAAlOARJAOML in
Miami may be available to conduct hydrocarbon fluorometry surveys.
The RN Seward
Johnson might be available prior to a cruise in the South Atlantic (off Brazil). We propose that
the Johnson (or Similarly equipped vessel) will steam to an appropriate port for loading
(Gulfport?) then conduct field studies for 4 days near the wellhead. Details include:
I.
The necessary scientific J measurement systems for be carried by the vessel

conducting the validation studies will include: (1) a CTD (ship borne), (2) expendable
temperature probes, (3) an active acoustic backscatter system operating generally
below 30 kHz, (4) Oil detecting (Iowerable) and other types of fluorometers (5) a lowfrequency ADCP to obtain full-depth current profiles, (6) a LlSST system for particle
size evaluation, and (7) water sampling devices (Rosettes or others) to sample
depths likely to contain entrained oil (as indicated by acoustics and temperature
008711
9/27/20108:08 PM
probes). Sampling will also be conducted above and below the entrainment depths.
It is important to note that the AXBTs which suggest a plume at 100 m depth were
limited to sampling of the upper 350 m of the water, therefore there may be deeper
plumes. An examination for plumes over the full range of water depths at the
wellhead is crucial.
II.
The ship sampling pattern will be a broad circle about the wellhead (roughly at 1-4
km radius from the wellhead at the surface but to be determined in consultation with
incident command based on obstructions, vessel traffic and other potential conflicts).
The submerged oil may have migrated in more than one direction. Concentric circles
at increasing radii should be occupied until the shape of the plume becomes clear.
After completion of the circle pattern, a series of plume transects (roughly normal to
the suspected direction of motion of the plume) at increasing ranges should be
conducted (more detail is provided below). Each plume transect should be mapped
using a different asset (ship or aircraft) using standard search and rescue algorithms.
III.
Cautions: lowered or towed eqUipment is likely to be fouled by any oil encountered.

Appropriate cleaning equipment should be used to treat equipment after use and
appropriate certifications/training for all those on the vessel are needed.
IV.
Background Data: The ship will also seek to detect naturally occurring biological
horizons (layers of plankton) in the water column in order to observe the depth (and
other relationships) of the submerged oil and biological horizons (associated with
plankton). While thermostads are unexpected in the upper water column they are
more common at depth and associated with rings. Vessels already on site may
yield valuable data from echosounder traces. Also, ADCPs on nearby rigs should be
examined for any signatures of a plume.
V.
Real time data: Real time acoustic backscatter data will be displayed aboard ship to
support the sampling plan. Transects close to (or near) the wellhead could reveal
the plume profile from the wellhead to the submerged oil horizons, thereby hopefully
unambiguously relating wellhead to plume (this should be confirmed by independent
sampling).
VI.
Additional sampling: If possible appropriate gear for sampling plankton should be

included on the initial missions, to help characterize biological conditions.
It is important to note that the ability to map the plume with simple techniques such as
temperature profiles and acoustic backscatter enable the larger exercise to be conducted at
limited expense. Should these techniques prove ineffective more sophisticated techniques like
fluorometry will be required and will also be evaluated .. The expense of the mapping exercise
will increase dramatically because of the need to clean sensors after fouling (potentially after
every cast) and the potential loss of expensive equipment (e.g., the loss of a $100,000+ glider
008712
9/27/20108:08 PM
. due to buoyancy issues, fouling, or other causes).' It is well worth the effort to establish the
validity of simple techniques because of the cost benefit and avoided equipment loss more
sophisticated approaches are expected to incur.
It will be critically important to coordinate the sampling with the existing command. Numerous
obstructions exist in the vicinity of the wellhead, and use of acoustics must be approved. The
studies cannot effectively proceed unless this acoustic transmission constraint is removed.
Current Status - There are already a number of sampling efforts underway in the Gulf of Mexico
as part of the ongoing response to th~ DWH spill. These include remote sensing, shoreline
assessments, ship-based sampling, and limited sub-surface sampling. To-date there has been
limited coordination due to the scale and complexity of the response, and also due to the
overwhelming offers of assistance. However, these data are available to the unified area
command and incident command personnel via a NOAA-managed ftp site.
Some validation efforts are currently being carried out, based on sampling and analysis efforts
supported by NOAA, BP, and several regional research institutions (e.g., LUMCON, TAMU).
The results of these validation efforts are still being processed and relayed to the area
command. Additional measurements (AXBTs, CTDs) are being made via the NOAA Gordon
Gunter and NOAAlAOML P3-based flights. Ongoing ADCP-based measurements are available
from oil and gas industry platforms in the Gulf.
An outstanding need is to document and implement a scientifically valid protocol for method and
data validation/verification. The NOAA Research Council, in collaboration with the ocean
science community can provide specific guidance on this aspect.
Identification and Deployment of Platforms and Sensors
Approach - Based on the results of the validation efforts, specific assets and deployments can
be identified and established. The U.S. 100S community, along with the operational response
teams, have already established a working list of available observing assets including vessels,
gliders, AUVs, and probes. These assets are being evaluated in the context of meeting the
needs listed above, and how quickly they can be deployed. Decisions about deployments will
be driven by the identified needs, and made by the unified command in consultation with the
relevant science experts and operational leads.
Current Status - There are already several sampling and research cruises underway in the Gulf,
and more recently (17 May 2010) the first of several sub-surface gliders have been deployed.
The sensor payloads vary, but all data is being directed back to area command for use. These
early deployments can help establish some of the operational challenges and also provide
important baseline condition data for future analysis.
Mapping, Modeling, and Analysis
Approach - Once the sub-surface sampling is fully underway the resulting data will be passed to
expert circulation and 3-D modeling teams at NOAA and regional research institutions with
008713
9/27/2010 8:08 PM
expert knowledge of the Gulf of Mexico. Direct observations will also be passed to the field
teams for additional validation. Several 3-D models will be used, in combination with other
circulation models. There is an immediate need to clarify the most appropriate models.
Expertise resides within NOAA, University of South Florida, and NC State University.
Once one or more proxies to identify subsurface plumes are validated the mapping activity can
begin in earnest. Based on considerable observational data collected near the spill site [e.g.
Hallock et aI., 2009] it is likely that the plume(s) have moved along isobaths to the east and west
of the spill site. The currents are expected to be dominated by bottom-trapped topographic
waves with periods of weeks and amplitudes of 10-30 cm/s. These currents are typically
strongest near the bottom, and it is possible that deep plumes are of greater spatial extent than
surface features. Given that several weeks have passed since the initial accident, it is also
possible that any plumes have developed more complex shapes. Incursion of the Loop Current
or associated eddies over the sites will complicate the flows and could induce cross-isobath
circulation. Hence we anticipate an extensive mapping exercise that will take weeks to execute,
possibly months. The plume may extend 1ODs of km from the wellhead in several directions. It
is recommended that each arm, at each depth horizon, be mapped using a dedicated asset,
either a ship or aircraft. If the arm is not mapped before the asset must return to port, a
replacement vessel will need to re-acquire the plume and continue the mapping.
The preferred assets, if validated, are the use of XBT or AXBTs and low-frequency acoustics.
Aircraft can use AXBTs very effectively. Standard vessels can utilize XBT and acoustics. Any
assets operating in the area should collect visual records of surface oil distributions for use in
validation. An expected sampling plan for vessels would be to use acoustics to identify the
plume and XBTs to confirm the presence of a thermostad. The plume width is difficult to
predict but is possibly of order 10 km and suggests XBT launches should be conducted every 3
km or so. Assuming 20 km cross-plume transects and 10 km along-plume spacing would
require 60 XBTs to map 100 km plume, executed in a radiator pattern (e.g. Figure 1). Assuming
this 100 km plume section is mapped from a vessel steaming at 10 knots it would take roughly
20 hours to complete. Some water sampling should be conducted to confirm the presence of oil
and to examine its composition. Assuming a limited set are collected it is reasonable to expect
100 km plume could be mapped in one day. Slower ship speeds may be required to avoid
cavitation and the associated loss of range/sensitivity of the acoustic profiling and would
lengthen the sampling time.
008714
9/27/20108:08 PM
If reliable proxies are not identified, then fluorometry and water samples will need to be used;
this wi" greatly slow the mapping and necessitate extensive cleanup during sampling to keep
the sensors optional. Platforms for use under this option include towed bodies, AUVs and
20
gliders, though they will need to be
matched to the depths of the plume(s), that
is, the operating depths of the platforms
18
106 h
will need to be capable of capturing the
depth of the oil plumes.
Fouling and
clean-up are serious concerns because of
16
a lack of experience with operation of
these types of platforms in a heavily-oiled
environment.
14
We suggest that 3 vessels in addition to

the validation vessel be put on alert to
respond. They should be mobilized as the
mapping exercise clarifies the existence,
extent and complexity of the subsurface
spill.
At present the most appropriate
vessels have not been identified. The
need for low-frequency acoustic systems
constrains eligible vessels.
12
,...
10
An operations center to direct sampling

and derive analyzed products will need to
6
be established.. Trained analysts on each
sampling vessel will transmit an initial
analysis of the acoustics and XBT
4
information (or fluorometry if necessary) to
the operations center. Doing so alleviates
the
need
for
high
bandwidth
2
communications from all vessels. A sma"
team of analysts onshore will ingest and
synthesize in the incoming information to
o~--~----~--~----~~
derive regularly updated depictions of the
.
...
4
6
8
plume structure.
Satellite data wi"
km
continue to be used to map the location of
the
surface oil plume and areas of
Figure 1 - an example of a radiator pattern mapping
of a subsurface plume, from Ledwell et al. (2004).
suspected oil. Imagery derived from U.S.
(NOAA 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and NASA Terra
and Aqua), as we" as European (Metop_A and ENVISAT) satellites. The data will be remapped
and re-navigated to a standard projection and recalibrated for the affected local regions of
interest. Maps and ocean current movies wi" be derived daily and communicated with the
researchers of the team, the research vessels, and other people who are interested in the data.
The analysts will receive feedback from in-situ observations (ships and aircraft) and adjust their
.,
008715
9/27/20108:08 PM
analyses accordingly. The maps will used to initialize various models used to forecast the
motion of the oil - water mixture.
The 3D mapped distribution of the oil spill will be used to initialize model estimates of particle
trajectories. Without an estimate of where the oil spill is at present an estimate of the total mass
or its position over time is not possible. There are a number of full-depth circulation models of
the Gulf that are in a position to simulate passive particle trajectories below the surface. The
ability to assimilate hydrographic data that may be collected is not as broadly available. Support
of an ensemble of modeling efforts would provide a range of solutions and permit some
estimate of accuracy. There are also very high resolution surface plume models being
considered that are capable of simulating detailed trajectories of oil along the coastline but the
validity of the simulation will be constrained by the availability of reliable initialization data.
Once an initial mapping is completed a sustained monitoring effort should be established. The
plume could be seeded with neutrally buoyant floats at key locations to provide continuous
information on its movement. Profiling floats configured to drift along the isopyncals where oil
has been found would be a cost-effective way to implement a monitoring program rapidly.
There appear to be no ARGO floats in the Gulf of Mexico at present; deploying some in the field
of. the surface slick could be valuable, though fouling will likely compromise the conductivity
measurements.
Biological sampling: A subsurface plume, if present, will affect a different set of organisms than
will a plume of oil on the surface. Accurate determination of subsurface impacts will require
detection and/or sampling of organisms at depth, as well as their environment. The following
actions should be taken:
1. Initiate sampling of the pelagic and demersal ecosystem in the immediate area of the
plume, and to the west. The Gordon Gunter (SEFSC) or similarly equipped vessel
would be an ideal sampling platform. The cruise would collect organisms using trawls
and MOCNESS plankton nets, and would collect samples water with a rosette sampler.
Tissue and water samples would be analyzed for oil and dispersant related
contaminants at the NMFS Seafood Safety Lab in Pascagoula, MS.
2. Collect historical information on distribution of organisms in the area of the plume from
existing sources. Information on fish distribution from catch and fisheries-independent
surveys is available at the SEFSC Pascagoula Lab and can be analyzed to determine
the historical presence of fish and other organisms in the area of, and at the depth of,
any detected plume. In addition, NOAA has information on deep sea corals and other
habitats that can be analyzed for potential impacts. This will allow any sampling to be
targeted to areas or likely impact.
Fate and transport modeling can help guide the longer-term mapping and measurement of the
oil. Models can provide some insight into the expected signal levels (based on concentration in
the water column), and the expected location of the oil. Models show that in the near field all the
oil and gas in the plume rise at the same speed; in the far field the individual oil droplets move
008716
9/27/20108:08 PM
independently. These model outputs can help focus limited resources for mapping the plume
boundaries over time.
There are two phases of modeling: the near field and far field. The near field is dominated by
the plume dynamics near the source where the dispersed oil separates from the non-dispersed
oil: its vertical distribution is critical in initializing the far field model. The far field model is
dominated by the currents, diffusion parameters, and sink terms that define the concentration
field kilometers to hundreds of kilometers from the source. Measurements of the near field can
be used to validate the near field models. Vertical diffusion is expected to be minimal and
horizontal diffusion small in the far field. This means that the concentration might stay in a
measureable range tens of kilometers from the source, but the plume might be difficult to find.
Oil is removed from the water column by physical and bi910gical processes. Marine snow and
the vertical transport of sediments can sweep dispersed 011 out of plume over time as it moves
through the water with the deep water currents. Measurement of oil on the ocean floor could
help identity the fate of the oil and length of the subsurface plumes.
Current Status - Modeling is already being conducted by NOAA OR&R and several expert
modeling teams in the region. However, they have been limited by lack of observational datahence the need for a comprehensive sampling plan. This is the main objective for the overall
sampling strategy so that resulting modeling products can be used to inform near-term
operational decisions and form a basis for trajectory forecasting.
Data Management and Logistics
Approach - This is a critical part of the overall sampling strategy. The basic approach is to
aggregate validated sampling data via direction from the area command. This effort will be
directed by the NOAA SSC at the area command. All observations that are developed under
this overall plan will be transmitted to a NOAA-managed ftp server at the area command and
then transmitted to the assigned modeling groups. This will establish an "authoritative source"
for data, so that modeling efforts will maintain consistency and reliability. Sub-surface data can
also be integrated with surface observations, shoreline data, and atmospheric conditions.
Modeling output can also be transferred tolfrom this ftp service, but will most effectively be
managed by the modeling groups directly due to file size and format speCifications.
Coordination with the unified command priorities and field operations is critical. With numerous
vessels, platforms, and activities in the region the operational unit leaders need to be made
aware of any new sampling efforts or equipment being deployed. Informational updates will be
provided on a daily basis to ensure the security and integrity of the sub-surface missions.
Current Status - NOAA OR&R has already established the ftp service and is currently
managing all observational data. This process is being (and will be) communicated to all groups
conducting sampling. A NOAA point of contact has been established for this process. A
mission logistics coordinator will be needed to assist with coordination during the deployment
phase. This POC will work closely with the sub-surface sampling coordinator (already on site).
008717
9/27/20108:08 PM
References
Hallock, Z.R., W.J. Teague and E. Jarosz, Subinertial slope-trapped waves in the northeastern
Gulf of Mexico, Journal of Physical Oceanography 39 (2009), pp. 1475-1485.
Ledwell, J., T. Duda, M. Sundermeyer and H. Seim, 2004. Mixing in a coastal environment: 1. A
view from dye dispersion, J. Geophys. Oce., 109, doi: 10.1 029/003JC002941
Re: Fwd: Version I of Sub-surface sampling strategy
008718
Subject: Re: Fwd: Version 1 of Sub-surface sampling strategy

From: "Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>.
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 07:04:22 -0700
To: Robert. Pavia@noaa.gov
Thanks Bob.
Jason Rolph and I just had a meeting with CAPT Beeson (NIC Situation Unit Chief of Staff).
He had lots of requests for us (he is a good NOAA friend). He think NOAA needs to assign a
senior POC for Science (notice the capital S) issues. We are adding a science staff person
from OAR soon who will take the lead on this subsurface oil workgroup. We are sending an
email up the chain making his requests.
Mark
Robert.Pavia@noaa.gov wrote:
Subject:
Version 1 of Sub-surface sampling strategy
From: Samuel Walker <Sam.Walker@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 15:47:02 -0500
To: "Zdenka S. Willis" <Zdenka.S.Willis@noaa.gov>
To: "Zdenka S. Willis" <Zdenka.S.Willis@noaa.gov>
cc: Suzanne Skelley <Suzanne.Skelley@noaa.gov>, Gary C Matlock
<Gary.C.Matlock@noaa.gov>, Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov, Jack Harlan
<Jack.Harlan@noaa.gov>, Robert Pavia <Robert.Pavia@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Charlie Henry <Charlie.Henry@noaa.gov>, "Michele A.
Finn" <Michele.A.Finn@noaa.gov>
AIIThis document should be sufficient to answer the immediate request from the
Administrator. Thanks to all for the great short-term input. Recognize this is a work in
progress, so now that we have time to breathe let's revisit elements.
Have tried to incorporate all the concerns that were raised during our afternoon call.
Dr. Robinson's point about science integrity is laced throughout. Have also removed
or softened any assumptions about the specific behavior of this plume. Hope I've
done justice to those points.
Budget has been removed for now, as the primary message is that this issue is being
coordinated and understood on-site.
I'll keep everyone posted with updates and requirements from the theater.
lof2
9/27/20102:03 PM
Re: Fwd: Version 1 of Sub-surface sampling strategy
008719
I Bob's input on the three time horizons for a NOAA science mission were very helpful -
I that is a great way to think about this situation.

i
There are very pressing immediate

needs and then some that we can sort out over'the next few days or week.
III
have included the initial NMFS elements, and also attached a more comprehensive
plan forwarded by Bonnie Pnwith (NMFS) for potential review by Dr. Lubchenco.
Best regardsI Sam
j
1
2of2
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: Fwd: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request1
008738
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Fwd: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request]
From: Glen Watabayashi <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:43:29 -0700
To: Jason Rolfe <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>
CC: Chris Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>,
William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Jason Rolfe wrote:
I Hi guys, did anyone repy to Ryan Knight?

Not to my knowledge
I Did Coast Guard contact you for more on this?

Not to my knowledge
II Thank you,
I Jason
!!
Jason do we answer thru you so you know what we are saying?

Here is my short answer and if you need more we will need to
do it tomorrow.
The 500 model simulations are what we have for now.
We have discussed the value of re-doing the analysis with the current
extent of the slick. We are not sure if it would alter the probability but
it may change travel time. Like we know it would take 0 days to impact
the Delta because it's already there.
Rich Patchen from CSDL is in Seattle this week and he is producing an extended
45 day forecast run with his NOAA Gulf of Mexico Model. The model is
actually running as I type. He will do quality checks on the results tomorrow.
Exactly how we will use this is still under discussion.
The thing that is difficult to do is initialize the model with the correct amount
of oil being distributed over the area. As you know, some very smart people
have been struggling with an oil budget.
Wish we were in Hawaii Jason!!
An aside for the State Dept person. What do we need to do to collect oceanographic
data within Mexican and Cuban territorial waters? Rich tells me that for the models,
doing a data collection run across the Yucatan Peninsula would be a very good thing
lof7
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: Fwd: URGENT: State Dept. Infonnation Request]
008739
to do. I asked the Miami P-3 folks to do this and they said it would require
State Department permission to go into another countries waters.
Mark Miller wrote:
Subject:
Re: Fwd: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request
From:
"Glen (Bushy) Watabayashi" <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 20 May 2010 13:18:48 -0700
To:
Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
I!
i
~
I
Ii
To:
CC:
1 Debbie Payton <Debbie. Payton@noaa.gov>,ChrisBarker
._, <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>
!
'II
!
1 Chris did you or someone else address this email?
,!
! !
~
i
I
Begin forwarded message:
'I
j
f
"
I Mark Miller wrote:
!,
!
I!
I, II
I I
I II
I
*From:* "Knight, Ryan D" <KnightRD@state.gov

<mailto: Kn ig htRD@state.gov
*Date:* May 20, 2010 9:33:28 AM PDT
*To:* Terrv.D.Dybvik@uscg.mil <mailto:Terrv.D.Dybvik@uscg.mil>
*Cc:* "Haynes, David CAPT' <David.C.Haynes@uscg.mil
<mailto:David.C.Haynes@uscg.mil, Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
<mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
*Subject* *RE: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request*
Terry,
Thanks for the prompt response. It is exceptionally helpful.
That said, I would like to pose one follow-up question in particular for
2of7
9/27/20 I 0 2:03 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: Fwd: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request]
008740
the sake of clarity.

I understand that there have been no changes to the initial 500
models
NOAA produced. However, are there plans to do additional
modeling? As
, I understand things, the initial models reflect a 20% - 40% probability
of oil impacting Cuba's EEZ and possibly its northern shores based
on
transport of the oil from the discharge source (well bore) to Cuba.
Therefore, it would seem to me that these models do not reflect the
impact probabilities once we actually know that oil is actually in the
Loop Current. That is, given that we know oil is in the Loop Current
(albeit a small amount), would that change the outcome of the models
being used?
; This information would be particularly useful should an event occur in
: which more significant amounts of oil are entrained in the Current. I
understand that we are speaking in the abstract, but given the tense
relationship between Cuba and the U.S., it would be most helpful to
know
under what circumstances the probabilities for threatslimpacts would
change so that we can plan accordingly.
Regards,
Ryan Knight
Ryan D. Knight
Environment Officer
Office of Economic Policy, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs U.S.
Department of State
(t) +1.202.647.3903
(e) knightrd@state.gov <mailto:knightrd@state.gov>
II
III
II
Ir
,
i !
I
!
I
f
I I
I
I
I
SBU
This email is UNCLASSIFIED-----Original Message---- From: Terrv.D.Dybvik@uscg.mil <mailto:Terry.D.Dybvik@uscg.mil>
[mailto:Terry.D.Dybvik@usCQ.milJ
; Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11 :52 AM
To: Knight, Ryan D
Cc: Haynes, David CAPT
Subject: RE: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request
Ryan,
1) Satellite imagery indicates that the main bulk of the oil is dozens
of miles away from the Loop Current. There is a tendril of light oil in
close proximity to the current indicating an increased likelihood of oil
30f7
9/27/20102:03 PM
008741
entering the current. A sheen of oil has been confirmed to have

entered
the loop current. Any oil in the current Would reach the Florida
Straits in 8-10 days.
A sheen of oil is defined as fresh oil continues to spread out on the
water surface, it eventually becomes sheen, a very thin layer of oil
(less than 0.0002 inches or 0.005 mm) floating on the water surface.
Sheens can vary greatly in color. In this incident, the thinnest sheens
are nearly transparent, and the thickest are dull brown in color.
2) Threats to Cuba and The Bahamas at this time would be minimal
3) There have not been any changes to the initial 500 models NOAA
produced. The models were based on 15 years for current and
I
I
I
I
weather
data.
4) Once in the loop the oil could take as few as 8 days and as long as
20 days to reach Cuba and 15 to 30 days to reach The Bahamas
(although
unlikely due to the strength of the Loop/Gulf currents)
!!
I
I
40f7
The potential impact on Cuba are deemed minimal due to "oil fate." In
the time it takes for oil to travel to the vicinity of Cuban waters, the
oil is expected to be highly weathered and most likely consist of
relatively small but widely scattered tarballs.
Tarballs are small remnants of spilled crude oil as a result of
weathering. Most tarballs are small, coin-sized globs of weathered oil,
but some may be as large as pancakes. Tarballs are very persistent
in
the marine environment and can travel hundreds of miles and affect
miles
of shoreline. The continual weathering process eventually creates a
tarball that is hard and crusty on the outside and soft and gooey on
the
.
inside. Turbulence in the water or beach activity from people or
animals
may break open tarballs, exposing their softer, more fluid centers.
; Temperature has an important effect on the stickiness of tarballs. As
air and water temperatures increase, tarballs become more fluid and
sticky. Another factor influencing stickiness is the amount of
particulates and sediments present in the water or on the shoreline,
which can adhere to tarballs. The more sand and debris attached to a
tarball, the more difficult it is to break the tarball open. These
factors make it extremely difficult to predict how long a tarball will
remain sticky. Once tarballs hit the beaches, they may be picked up
by
hand or by beach-cleaning machinery. If the impact is severe, the top
9/27/20101:03 PM
008742
layer of sand containing the tarballs may be removed and replaced

with
, clean sand.
Regards,
! I!
I
!
I I
~
Terry Dybvik
Booz Allen support
NIC - Interagency Strategic Planning
i
-----Original Message----From: KnightRD@state.gov <mailto:KnightRD@state.gov>
[mailto: Kn ig htRD@state.gov1
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:24 AM
, To: Dybvik, Terry CTR
Subject: FW: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request
Importance: High
.
Terry,
Below is my original email regarding our request for technical

information. Any information you can provide will be most
appreciated.
Our request is urgent, with apologies as I recognize that you are
, juggling quite a bit right now.
I'
Best,
Ryan Knight
Ryan D. Knight
Environment Officer
Office of Economic Policy, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
II
I
!
!I iI
50f7
U.S. Department of State
(t)
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
008743
(e) knightrd@state.gov <mailto:knightrd@state.gov;>
, SBU
This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
j I
I !
~
1I
From: Knight, Ryan D
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 20108:46 AM
To: 'mark.w.miller@noaa.gov <mailto:%27mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>'
Cc: Hillsman, Jarahn D
Importance: High
I
t I
I
i
1 I
I
j.
I
I
l
I,
i
!
1 'II
I I
I;
i
I
1
60f7
I have read several press reports that oil has entered the Loop
Current.
, I'd like to get confirmation on that, as well as clarity regarding the
details of this development. I have the following specific questions:
I1
!
!i I
Good morn ing Mr. Miller,
1.
What is the nature or composition of the oil that has entered
the current, and of what significance is this?
2.
What threats does this potentially pose to Cuba, and perhaps
The Bahamas?
3.
What do the latest models suggest in terms of any waters or
shores impacted outside of U.S. jurisdiction, again with particular
attention to Cuba and The Bahamas (Le., what geographic areas
might be
involved)?
4.
What temporal context can you give (Le., if it is in the
current, how long would it take to reach Cuba and/or The Bahamas,
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: Fwd: URGENT: State Dept Infonnation Request]
008744
assuming those countries might be threatened)?
I am sure more questions will arise as the situation develops, and I

appreciate your efforts to assist us.
Best,
Ryan Knight
Ryan D. Knight
Environment Officer
Office of Economic Policy, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
SBU
70f7
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
008745
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Fwd: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request]
From: Jason Rolfe <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:04:38 -0400
To: Glen.WatabaYashi@noaa.gov
CC: Chris Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>,
William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Thank you Bushy. Given the state of things, I am inclined to talk with CG to see how their
folks are dealing with the international issues.
Bill, this is something that will end up on my NIC notes for you for tomorrow's 8am call in
case I can't join.
Thanks,
Jason
Glen Watabayashi wrote:
I
I
Jason Rolfe wrote:
I I Hi guys, did anyone repy to Ryan Knight?

!
! Not to my knowledge
I
I I Did Coast Guard contact you for more on this?

~ot to my knowledge
II
II Thank you,
, IJason
I
!
) Jason do we answer thru you so you know what we are saying?
I Here is my short answer and if you need more we will need to

do it tomorrow.
'I The 500 model simulations are what we have for now.
, We have discussed the value of re-doing the analysis with the current
I, extent of the slick. We are not sure if it would alter the probability but
it may change travel time. Like we know it would take 0 days to impact
the Delta because it's already there.
IRich Patchen from CSDL is in Seattle this week and he is producing an extended
1
lof8
45 day forecast run with his NOAA Gulf of Mexico Model. The model is
.
actually running as I type. He will do quality checks on the results tomorrow.
Exactly how we will use this is still under discussion.
9/27/20102:03 PM
008746
The thing that is difficult to do is initialize the model with the correct amount
of oil being distributed over the area. As you know, some very smart people
have been struggling with an oil budget.
.
Ii
! Wish we were in Hawaii Jason! 1

~
Ii
!
! An aside for the State Dept person. What do we need to do to collect oceanographic
! data within Mexican and Cuban territorial waters? Rich tells me that for the models,
I doing a data collection run across the Yucatan Peninsula would be a very good thing
I to do.
I asked the Miami P-3 folks to do this and they said it would require
State Department permission to go into another countries waters.
I Mark Miller wrote:

I
Subject:
Re: Fwd: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request
From:
"Glen (Bushy) Watabayashi" <Glen. Watabayashi@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 20 May 201013:18:48 -0700
To:
To:
CC:
Debbie Payton <Debbie.Pavton@noaa.gov>, Chris Barker
<Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>
Chris did you or someone else address this email?
I
I
I
I
!
20fS
Mark Miller wrote:

1 *From:* "Knight, Ryan D" <KnightRD@state.gov
l<mailto:KnightRD@state.gov
9/27/20102:03 PM
!, I,
!
11
II
!
008747
.*Date:* May 20, 2010 9:33:28 AM PDT

*To:* Terry.D.Dybvik@uscg.mil
<mailto:Terry.D.Dybvik@uscg.mil> .
*Cc:* "Haynes, David CAPT" <David.C.Haynes@uscg.mil
<mailto:David.C.Haynes@uscg.mil, Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
<mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
*Subject:* *RE: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request*
Terry,
Thanks for the prompt response. It is exceptionally helpful.
That said, I would like to pose one follow-up question in
particular for
the sake of clarity.
I understand that there have been no changes to the initial 500
models
NOAA produced. However, are there plans to do additional
modeling? As
I understand things, the initial models reflect a 20% - 40%
probability
of oil impacting Cuba's EEZ and possibly its northern shores
based on
transport of the oil from the discharge source (well bore) to
Cuba.
Therefore, it would seem to me that these models do not reflect
the
impact probabilities once we actually know that oil is actually in
the
Loop Current. That is, given that we know oil is in the Loop
Current
(albeit a small amount), would that change the outcome of the
models
being used?
This information would be particularly useful should an event
occur in
which more significant amounts of oil are entrained in the
Current. I
understand that we are speaking in the abstract, but given the
tense
relationship between Cuba and the U.S., it would be most
helpful to know
under what circumstances the probabilities for threats/impacts
would
change so that we can plan accordingly.
Regards,
Ryan Knight
30f8
9/27/20102:03 PM
008748
Ryan D. Knight
Environment Officer
Office of Economic Policy, Bureau of Western Hemisphere
Affairs U. S.
Department of State
(t) +1.202.647.3903
SBU
This email is UNCLASSIFIED-----Original Message----From: Terry.D.Dybvik@uscg.mil
<mailto:Terry.D.Dybvik@uscg.mil>
[mailto: Terry. D. Dybvik@uscg .mill
Sent: Thursday, May 20,2010 11 :52 AM
To: Knight, Ryan D
Cc: Haynes, David CAPT
Subject: RE: URGENT: State Dept. Information Request
II
!
,
I
Ryan,
1) Satellite imagery indicates that the main bulk of the oil is

dozens
of miles away from the Loop Current. There is a tendril of light oil
in
close proximity to the current indicating an increased likelihood
of oil
entering the current. A sheen of oil has been confirmed to have
entered
the loop current. Any oil in the current would reach the Florida
Straits in 8-10 days.
A sheen of oil is defined as fresh oil continues to spread out on
the
water surface, it eventually becomes sheen, a very thin layer of
oil
(less than 0.0002 inches or q.005 mm) floating on the water
surface.
Sheens can vary greatly in color. In this incident, the thinnest
sheens
are nearly transparent, and the thickest are dull brown in color.
2) Threats to Cuba and The Bahamas at this time would be
minimal
3) There have not been any changes to the initial 500 models
NOAA
produced. The models were based on 15 years for cl!rrent and
40f8
9/27/20102:03 PM
008749
l weather
, data.
I
I
I
I~
50f8
4) Once in the loop the oil could take as few as 8 days and as
long as
'. 20 days to reach Cuba and 15 to 30 days to reach The Bahamas
(although
unlikely due to the strength of the Loop/Gulf currents)
II I
I
The potential impact on Cuba are deemed minimal due to "oil

fate." In
the time it takes for oil to travel to the vicinity of Cuban waters,
the
oil is expected to be highly weathered and most likely consist of
relatively small but widely scattered tarballs.
Tarballs are small remnants of spilled crude oil as a result of
weathering. Most tarballs are small, coin-sized globs of
weathered oil,
but some may be as large as pancakes. Tarballs are very
persistent in
the marine environment and can travel hundreds of miles and
affect miles
of shoreline. The continual weathering process eventually
creates a
tarball that is hard and crusty on the outside and soft and gooey
on the
inside. Turbulence in the water or beach activity from people or
animals
may break open tarballs, exposing their softer, more fluid
centers.
Temperature has an important effect on the stickiness of
tarballs. As
air and water temperatures increase, tarballs become more fluid
and
sticky. Another factor influencing stickiness is the amount of
particulates and sediments present in the water or on the
shoreline,
which can adhere to tarballs. The more sand and debris
attached to a
tarball, the more difficult it is to break the tarball open. These
factors make it extremely difficult to predict how long a tarball will
remain sticky. Once tarballs hit the beaches, they may be
picked up by
hand or by beach-cleaning machinery. If the impact is severe,
the top
layer of sand containing the tarballs may be removed and
1. replaced with
clean sand.
II
I
I!
I
II
I
I
II
I
I
I
9/27/20102:03 PM
008750
II
Regards,
II
Terry Oybvik
Bo02 Allen support
NIC -Interagency Strategic
USCG Office: (
----Original Message----From: KnightRO@state.gov <mailto:KnightRD@state.gov>
- [mailto:KnightRD@state.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 20,2010 10:24 AM
To: Oybvik, Terry CTR
Importance: High
Terry,
I
,
. I
I-
I
~-
Below is my original email regarding our request for technical

: information. Any information you can provide will be most
appreciated.
Our request is urgent, with apologies as I recognize that you are
juggling quite a bit right now.
I
!
f
f
[,
!
,
I
Best,
Ryan Knight
II
, I
Ryan D. Knight
Environment Officer
Affairs
U. S. Department of State
II
II
II
I
II
II
I
(e) ktiightrd@state.gov <mailto:knightrd@state.gov>
I
6of8
9/27/20102:03 PM
008751
SBU
From: Knight, Ryan D

Sent: Thursday, May 20,20108:46 AM
To: 'mark.w.miller@noaa.gov
<mailto: %27mark. w.miller@noaa.gov>'
Cc: Hillsman, Jarahn D
. Subject: FW: URGENT: State Dept. Information Req uest
Importance: High
, Good morning Mr. Miller,
I have read several press reports that oil has entered the Loop
, Current.
I'd like to get confirmation on that, as well as clarity regarding the
details of this development. I have the following specific
, questions:
i
J
I
I
i
1.
What is the nature or composition of the oil that has
entered
the current, and of what Significance is this?
2.
What threats does this potentially pose to Cuba, and
, perhaps
The Bahamas?
3.
What do the latest models suggest in terms of any waters
or
shores impacted outside of U.S. jurisdiction, again with particular
attention to Cuba and The Bahamas (Le., what geographic areas
might be
involved)?
I
II
I
I
.11
7of8
9/27/2010 2:03 PM
008752
4.
What temporal context can you give (i.e., if it is in the
current, how long would it take to reach Cuba and/or The
Bahamas,
.
assuming those countries might be threatened)?
I
II,
I am sure more questions will arise as the situation develops,

and I
appreciate your efforts to assist us.
I, II
II
1
1,
Best,
Ryan Knight
,!
,j
II
i
Ryan D. Knight
Environment Officer
I
I
i

Affairs
I, !
.I
II
! I
t
I
I
!
, (t) +1.202.647.3903
I !
II
I
Ii
I
II
r
!
SBU
I I
i
I
80f8
9/27120]02:03 PM
[Fwd: RE: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ); Q&A#3184]
008754
Catherine Cesnik
V.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Deepwater Horizon Spill Response, Nati
202-579-6023 blackberry
Catherine Ce5nik@ios.doi.qov
From: Timothy.A.Tobiasz@uscg.mil [TimothY.A.Tobiasz@uscg.-m~i717J---------------------------------
To: Cesnik, Catherine M

Subject: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQl:
Q&A#3184
Catherine,
Could you draft a response to the below O?
Thx,
TT
-----Original Message----F'rom: Jones, Melinda
To: HQS-DG-LST-CG DCD-Incident Support Team; HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit: Offutt, Todd CDR: Tobiasz, Tim CDR
Cc: Burns, David CDR; Dickey, Laura CDR; EnsleYI Kristopher LT; Hill, Patricia CDR; Jones, Melinda: Langum, Scott CDR; Mackenzie, Nathan LT;
Robert; McLaughlin l Daniel CDR; Morrison, Stephanie LCDR; Offutt; Todd CDR; Warren l Robert CDRi Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; St. J(
Wright, Howard CDR; Collins, Laura CDR: Derianl Matthew LT; Lauzon , Michelle eTR; Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPT; Didominicus, LOU;
Bouziane, Michele LCDR~' Chaney, William CAPT; Goad, Michael: Latham, Dee; Lobsinger, Eric L'1'; Smith, Beverly; Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sane
Vaughn, Roger; Amidon, Dale; Armstrong, Richard
Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta, Carlos; Flynnt Patrick CAPT; Hannigan f Sean I
Hellberg, Jonathan LeDR; Hudson, Samuel LT:
John CDR; Keffer, Benjamin LT; Mohr, kevin CDR; Niemiec, Jack CAPT; Petty, Lee CDR; Rod:r
Robert CDR; Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Dykema, Stephen YNCM; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-lst-CG-621; HQS-DG-lst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR; Cunr.
Lado, Pamela; Manzi, Kathryn; Martyn, David CTR: McDaniel, Jack eTR; Quigley, William erR; Smith, Derek LCDR; hqs-dg-lst-dcms-82: HQS-OG-lstMontgomery, Patrick LT; Thompson, Matthew LeDR: Grawe, William; Guinee l Paul; Thurber, Margaret; 1'hurin9. Allen; Grantham, Carla
Subject: FOR FLl\SH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3164
Sirs/Ma I am,
Morgan Gray, Professional Staff (Energy & Commerce, Environment Subcommittee} has requested a response to the below question as a follow up t
(attached) as initially requested by HAC-KLS.
ASSIGNMENTS:
(NIC-HQ) Q&A ~3164: Per the answer provided, when has or will the FRTf issue something with respect to flow
estimates or recommendations as to the way ahead? (If there have already been statements or recent ones issued in these regard l please provl
Database Access: < file: / / / \ \hgs-nas-t-OOI \CG-e\CG-a2\CG-823\Hearinq~\Da tabase\QInd"". 7.010. xlsm>
vIr,
Melinda E. Jones
I::1formal Inquiries Manager
External Coordination Division (CG-B23}
Dffi.ce of Budget and Programs {CG-S2)
u.s. Coast Guard
fax
Mellnda. E ~ Jones@l.!scq.mil
2of2
9/27/20102:03 PM
Fwd: FYI: Upcoming Deepwater Horizon hearings
008755
Subject: Fwd: FYI: Upcoming Deepwater Horizon hearings

From: Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 15:50:54 -0400
To: "Gelzer, Claudia CDR" <Claudia.C.Gelzer@uscg.mil>
CC: "Tobiasz, Tim CDR" <Timothy,A,Tobiasz@uscg.mil>,"Pond, Robert" <Robert.G.Pond@uscg.mil>, Jason
Rolfe <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
FYI, hearings next month where NOAA will be testifying.
weekend.
Have a good
Subject: FYI: Upcoming Deepwater Horizon hearings and tweaking of testimony

From: Katie Nichols <Katie.Nichols@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 May 201015:43:12 -0400
To: Brian T Pawlak <Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>, Michael S Gallagher <MichaeI.S.Gallagher@noaa.gov>, Lauren
B Lugo <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>, Jenni Wallace <Jenni.Wallace@noaa.gov>, Ralph Lopez
<Ralph. Lopez@noaa.gov>
CC: Samuel Rauch <SamueI.Rauch@noaa.gov>, John Oliver <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>, Rebecca Chiampi
<Rebecca.Chiampi@noaa.gov>, Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>, Beth Lumsden
<Beth. Lumsden@noaa.gov>, Gloria Thompson <Gloria. Thompson@noaa.gov>
Good Afternoon.
Please see message below for your information on the upcoming Deepwater Horizon hearings. I will likely
receive multiple versions of these testimonies for NMFS review. Please let me know if there are any questions.
Thanks,
Katie
------ Original Message ------Subject:Upcoming Deepwater Horizon hearings and tweaking of testimony
Date:Fri, 21 May 201015:29:46 -0400
From:Noel Jones <NoeI.T.Jones@noaa.gov>
To:Adrienne Harris <Adrienne.Harris@noaa.gov>, MaryLee Haughwout <MaryLee.Haughwout@noaa.gov>,
Paul Bradley <PauI.Bradley@noaa.gov>, Amanda Hunter <Amanda.Hunter@noaa.gov>
CC:OAR leg group <oar.hg.card@noaa.gov>, Katie Nichols <Katie.Nichols@noaa.gov>, _NWS Legislative
Affairs <nws.congressionalaffairs@noaa.gov>, Janice Sessing <Janice.Sessing@noaa.gov>, Lisa
Iwahara <Lisa.lwahara@noaa.gov>, 'John Longenecker' <John.K.Longenecker@noaa.gov>, Michael
Jarvis <MichaeI.Jarvis@noaa.gov>, Jessica Kondel <Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>
Hi NOS (and everyone else),

As you may know, we have 3 additional hearings on the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill that have been scheduled in June:
June 9th -- Before the House Committee on Science and Technology -- "Oil
and Water Don't Mix: Research and Technology Needs for Oil Spill
Recovery" (or something similarly catchy)
June 10th -- Before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Insular
Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife -- "Our Natural Resources at Risk: The
Short and Long Term Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill"
June 15th -- Before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Insular
Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife -- "Ocean Science and Data Limits in a Time
of Crisis: Do NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have the
Resources to Respond?"
*SCIENCE COMMITTEE/JUNE 9th:*
It is my understanding Doug Helton from the Office of Response and
Restoration is the likely NOAA witness. Per the Committee, the purpose
of this hearing is to explore the research, development and technology
needs for the recovery and effective cleanup of oil spills.
100
9/27/20102:03 PM
008756
The testimony should include an overview of; NOAA'S role(s) in oil spill
research; the activities and programs NOAA has pursued since the passage
of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 until today; opportunities to
strengthen the Federal response through oil spill research and
technology; and, any recommendations to support a coordinated Federal
response going forward. Much of this information is already included
within the "base" testimony that has already been cleared (and used for
the 3 May hearings). However, this is also an opportunity for NOAA to
expand its discussion on areas in need of additional research and
development. It would also be appropriate to update certain sections of
the testimony, based on the current status of the spill (now that it is
beginning to make contact with the shoreline).
Please review the testimony and work with the other line offices to
determine whether we have any further input to offer regarding
improvements that could be made in the research and development arena. I
suspect each individual line has a different perspective on the research
and development enhancements that could improve the products and
services they are providing to respond to the Deepwater incident. Our
testimony should seek to include relevant information from all line
offices. We are working to ensure the invitation letter is as specific
as possible regarding this request so that we can talk about future
research without appearing to be making requests outside the budget. It
would be helpful to mention of any general types of research and
information needs, which could be included in an expanded "Activities to
Improve Future Response Efforts" section. Additionally, 1 would
recommend including a few Deepwater-specific examples, if we have
instances where we can say things like "we are doing, X, but if we had
an understanding of Y we would be better positioned to do Z."
*Please provide an updated version of the testimony for the June 9th
Science Committee hearing to me hearing to me by COB on Thursday, May
27th.*
*HOUSE RESOURCES/JUNE lOth;*

It is my understanding that Dave Kennedy will be the NOAA witness for
this hearing. Per the invitation letter (attached here), this
Subcommittee hearing will explore short and long-term impacts to trust
resources, including fisheries, birds and other wildlife, marine
mammals, tribal resources, and protected fish and wildlife habitat and
other natural areas as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It
will also examine the implications for local communities who depend on
many of those resources for their livelihoods. To that end, the
Subcommittee would appreciate hearing NOAA's views regarding:
(1) the short and long-term environmental impacts of this oil spill;
(2) the adequacy of pre-impact baseline data as a foundation for
conducting natural resource damage assessments;
(3) the need for prolonged commitment by the Federal government, the
States, and the responsible party to
mitigate these environmental damages; and
(4) the sufficiency of community outreach to disseminate information to
and receive information from the publiC about the environmental
impacts of this oil spill.
Clearly it will be important to work with NMFS and other interested line
office to modify the base testimony to specifically focus on the natural
resources element. It will also be important to work closely with GCNR.
I also recommend you touch base with NOAA Communications, and
potentially the NOAA Education office, to appropriately respond to (4).
Again, some of this information is already contained within our base
testimony, but we should modify the testimony to include any updates or
additional information that is warranted -- especially since we will
have already presented our initial testimony before the Full Committee.
House Resources hearing to me hearing to me by COB on Friday, May 28th.*_
2of3
9/27/20102:03 PM
008757
*HOUSE RESOURCES/JUNE 15th:*

It is my understanding that Dave Kennedy will also be the NOAA witness
for this hearing, entitled "Ocean Science and Data Limits in a Time of
Crisis: Do NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), have the
Resources to Respond?" At this time we have not received the invitation
letter from the Committee, but it seems as though many of the updates
that are done for the Science Committee hearing would apply to this
hearing, based on the title. Mike or I will be in touch as we receive
additional guidance for the content of this testimony.
House Resources hearing to me hearing to me by COB on Wednesday, June 2nd.
*
Please let Mike or I know if you have any questions about this request.
Thanks very much for your assistance,
Noel
Noel Jones
Legislative Affairs Specialist
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
IFYI: Upcoming Deepwater Horizon hearings and tweaking of testimony.emll Content-Type: message/rfc822i
30n
9/27/20102:03 PM
008770
DAlLY DWH 1 NOAA ACTMTIES AND ACTION ITEMS 5.28.20 I 0
Subject: DAILY DWH I NOAA ACTMTIES AND ACTION ITEMS 5.28.2010

From: "Jen.Pizza" <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 18:24:04 -0400
To: DWH leadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>
Good evening everyone,
The update from loday's DWH /NOAA activilies is pasted below (and attached).
Enjoy the long weekend!
Best,
Jen
From NRTCali
1. Top Kill attempt #3 (final) underway. AntiCipated to last 8-12 hours. Consists of Top Kill plus Junk Shot. If unsuccessful riser will
second BOP would be placed atop the failed unit.
2. Rumors of subsurface oil plume heading north loward Mobile. BP stated previously that no oil will reach Alabama shores.
RESPONSE
OPERATIONS NIC/ICC/NRT
NIC Activities
1. Protective Berm Project - Developing evaluation criteria for efficacy and environmental impact for the prototype. Unknown constl
2. NOAA NIC reps respond to follOwing Congressional questions by COB:
Rep Jeff Miller: CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT OIL PLUMES HAVE BEN IDENTIFIED AT 3500FEET BELOW SURFACE AND THAT TIRep Cassidy: IS DISPERSANT AT MUDLINE CONTRIBUTING TO OIL PLUMES?
3. For State Department organized US Cuba meeting NOAA NIC representatives provided information on the following: the type of
under development before the beginning of hurricane season; monitoring of oil movement towards Florida an indicator to monitor tl
technical guidance during the crief.
4. NOAA NIC representatives collected comments from USDA & 001 concerning OR&R's 'Oil Spill Response in Coastal Marshes' (
5. NOAA continuing to coordinate with FDA on seafood safety and sampling issue.
SCIENCE
See Attached PDF.
LMR
Fisheries Closures
NOAA Fisheries is extending the eastern and southern boundaries of the closure to encompass a substantial mass of noncontigu
projected movement of a small portion of the slick outside the southern boundary.
This is effective 6:00 pm EST on May 28,2010.
The new closure measures 60,683 sq mi (157,169 sq km). which is about 25% of the GOM EEl. compared to the May 25 closure
22% of the GOM EEl.
Map of current closure is attached.
Seafood Safety
Working on products for public rollout of seafood testing plan, which is anticipated to happen next week.
Sensory analysis ongoing in Pascagoula, MS. Chemical analysis is ongoing at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center as well.
The Seafood Inspection Program entered into a contractual arrangement with the University of Florida for the Univensity to providE
available to analyze samples.
The first of several training sessions will be held starting June 1, in Pascagoula. MS.
Oil has returned to several areas where seafood samples were collected last week. These areas were under consideration for rethey are not candidate areas for opening at this time.
NOAA Fisheries will resume baseline sampling next week in two areas: Western Louisiana and along the West Florida shelf.
NOAA Fisheries is planning to contract with a hook and line vessel contracted to attempt to catch pelagic species in the area of It
NRDA
1) NOAA staff, in coordination with DOl, will provide a briefing on the NRDA process to the Staff Leads of the Louisiana-Mississippi
CEQ and OMB on Tuesday June 1 at 12:00 pm EDT. Potential implications of the spill on Readmap activities, as well as potential ~
2) NOAA Sea Grant along with State partners have organized community meetings next week June 1 - 3 in Biloxi, Mobile, and Slid,
The goal of the meetings is to answer relevant local, state and regional questions by State and Federal partners and agencies to e
decisions regarding the Deepwater Horizon spill. Members of NOAA's NRDA team will participate in these meetings to discuss inj~
3) NOAAs Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program has cleared the attached fact sheets. They are coming u
description of NOAA's NRDA work on the Deepwater Horizon spill. The second file is a general desCription of the NRDA process.
conducted or that is planned for the Deepwater Horizon NRDA
ASSETS AND
PLATFORMS
NO REPORT
FUNCTIONAl. TEAMS
REGIONAL
10f3
Preparations for next week's Sea Grant Town Hall meetings continue. A meeting between Dr. Larry Robinson and Dr. Bill Walker
Dr. Walker is the Director of the Department of Marine Resources for the State of MiSSissippi. Dr. Walker is also the Governor of Mi
Alliance (GOMA). Governor Barber is the lead governor for the five Gulf states that comprise the GOMA. Further, Dr. Walker is reet
ocean governances, like GOMA. that now include all coastal states which is particularly germane given the Administration's regiOn!
9/27/20]02:04 PM
008771
DAn..Y DWH I NOAA ACTMTIES AND ACTION ITEMS 5.28.2010
20f3
LEGISLATIVE I
INTERGOVT AFFAIRS
Staff from the House Resources Committee has asked for the following information by June 7th:
1) A list of all of the oil spills that NOAA has responded to in the last ten years and the type of spill (oil tanker, rig blowout, other ty
2). How much funding NOM expended on those spills responses,
3) Whether a responsible party was identified, and
4} How much the responsible party paid to clean up the spill.
S} An estimate of the amount spilled and type of oil spilled (crude, jet fuel, etc.)
COMMS I PUBLIC
AFFAIRS
Press Resleases issued:

nbsp;
Gulf of Mexico
2. } NOAA Research Ship Gordon Gunter Expands Gulf Mission
3. } NOAA Assists With Multi-Agency Effort to Decontaminate Ships Passing through Oil Spill
EXTERNAL
ENGAGEMENT
NO REPORT
DATA INFORMATION
1. ) Dell Corporation contacted staff today to indicate that all orders have been processed. Servers and larger racks are in transpor
WednesdaylThursday (due to the 3 day weekend).
2. ) Composite statistics are being developed on the current configuration (gomex.noaa.gov) as load is growing, This is caused by'
No operational anomalies have been indicated on the public facing site,
3.) Facilities modifICations to accommodate additional circuits have been completed at SSMC and Landover, Maryland clearing all 1
4. ) Coordination is underway with review of prototype public site to develop improvements based on recommendations from this m
reviewed by ORR developers to assess level of effort and time frame for incorporation of changes,
ERMA: NOM. USCG, USGS, NGS, EPA. USFWS, States of LA. TX, FL, AL, MS
IAIINTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS
1, ) Meeting with Cubans set for Tuesday, June 1st, 3:00 at State. In a conference call today convened by the Cuba Desk, final ~
general situation by the NIC. Experts are identified to respond to questions within NOAA's expertise, Prior to the conference call,
coordination on the NOAA side.
2. ) Video conference with the Bahamas scheduled for June 3rd at 3:00. Video conference proposed and arranged by U.S. Emba~
and James Franklin) will address questions raised by Bahamians.
3. ) From the interagency Gulf seafood exports meeting last week, NMFS prepared a cable for Posts on the safety of seafood expo
will Circulate to other agencies for clearance.
4. } Final changes, incorporating State input, made in letter from Secretary Locke to the Lithuanian Trade Minister cleared and reSl
5. ) Still awaiting infonmation on Science Summit web cast and web site which State will send to Embassies so that intemational sc
LEGAL/GC
POLICY f BUDGET
NO REPORT
NO REPORT
MARINE MAMMALS
Noteworthy Developments During this Reporting Period:

Increase of 10 turtle strandings
No stranded dolphins were reported
For this event, a true stranding is defined as a turtle that washes ashore dead or debilitated or is found floating dead or debilitate
captured during directed sampling efforts are not categOrized as strandings.
Sea Turtles:
238 total sea turtles verified to date within the "deSignated spill area" (increase of 10 from May 26)
235 Stranded (increase of 10 from May 26)
o 222 of the stranded were found dead (increase of 10 from May 26)
1 stranded dead and oiled (no change from May26)
03 recovered alive but died in care (no change from May 26)
o 1 turtle released alive (no change from May 26)
o 9 live turtles in rehabilitation (no change from May 26)
3 collected during directed sampling efforts (no change from May 26)
Turtle Necropsy Status (of the 222 dead stranded):
7 assessed and unable to perform necropsies (i.e. advance decomposition) (no change from May 26)
17 partial necropsies (e.g. due to scavenging or autolysis) (no change from May 26)
50 full necropsies performed (no change from May 26)
148 verified strandings but animals not collected or awaiting necropsy (increase of 2 from May 26)
Of the 67 full or partial necropsies, the two primary considerations for the cause of these strandings are forced submergence or a
8.
8. nbsp;
9/27/20102:04 PM
008772
DAILY DWH 1 NOAA ACTMTIES AND ACTION ITEMS 5.28.2010
Infonnation on Signs of Oiling:

To date, visible evidence of oil has been documented externally on 1 dead stranded sea turtle that has bean examined.
To date. visible evidence of oil has been documented externally on 3 live collected sea turtles that have been examined.
Historical Strandings:
The total number of sea turtle strandings that we have documented from the LouisianaITexas border through the Florida panhan.
This is much higher than the number of turtle strandings that have been documented in recent years in Louisiana, Mississippi. ar
AL)
o Overall Northern Gulf range for recent years has been 18-4E>o From 2005 - 2009 the number of turtle strandings for the month of May has ranged from 1 to 15 in LOuiSiana
o From 2005 - 2009 0 to 13 in Mississippi
o From 2005 - 2009 1 to 15 in Alabama.
o In the Florida panhandle, from 2003 - 2007, the number of strandings in May has ranged from 13 to 37.
There has been an increase in awareness and human presence in the northern Gulf of Mexico, which likely has resulted in some
believe this factor fully explains the increase.
WH ACTIONS and UPDATES ".ZK.ZI,nuu,,,.,. Content.Type:

application/vnd.openxmlfonnats-officedocument.spreadsheatml.sheat
i Content.Encoding: base64
30f3
9/27/20102:04 PM
008773
NIC/ICC/NRT
SCIENCE
NRDA
ASSETS AND PLATFORMS
LEGISLATIVE /INTERGOV'T
AFFAIRS
COMMS / PUBLIC AFFAIRS
EXTERNAL ENGAGEMENT
008774
DATA INFORMATION
IAI INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
LEGAL I GC
POLICY I BUDGET
008775
MARINE MAMMALS
008776
008777
From
1. Top Kill attempt #3 (final) underway. Anticipated to last 8-12 hours. Consists of Top Kill plus
Shot. If unsuccessful riser will be cut and either Top Cap or Top Hat installed. By the end of
next week second BOP would be placed atop the failed unit.
2. Rumors of subsurface oil plume heading north toward Mobile. BP stated previously that no oil
will reach Alabama shores.
NIC Activities
1. Protective Berm Project - Developing evaluation criteria for efficacy and environmental impact
for the prototype. Unknown construction timeline - relatively near term (days/weeks).
2. NOM NIC reps respond to following Congressional questions by COB:
Rep Jeff Miller: CAN YOU CONFIRM TIlAT OIL PLUMES HAVE BEN IDENTIFIED AT 3500FEET
BELOW SURFACE AND TIlAT THEY ARE HEADED TOWARDS MOBILE BAY?
Rep Cassidy: IS DISPERSANT AT MUDLINE CONTRIBUTING TO OIL PLUMES?
3. For State Department organized US Cuba meeting NOM NIe representatives provided
information on the following: the type of oil spilled, fate and toxicity; predictions and new models
currently used or under development before the beginning of hurricane season; monitoring of oil
See Attached PDF.
Fisheries Closures
NOM Fisheries is extending the eastern and southern boundaries of the closure to encompass a
substantial mass of noncontiguous sheen crossing the eastern edge of the current boundary and the
projected movement of a small portion of the slick outside the southern boundary.
This is effective 6:00 pm EST on May 28, 2010.
The new closure measures 60,683 sq mi (157,169 sq km), which is about 25% of the GOM EEZ,
compared to the May 25 closure comprising 54,096 sq mi (140,109 sq km), which was slightly
more than 22% of the GOM EEZ.
Map of current closure is attached.
Seafood Safety
Working on products for public rollout of seafood testing plan, which is anticipated to happen
next week.
Sensory analysis ongoing in Pascagoula, MS. Chemical analysis is ongoing at the Northwest
Fisheries Science Center as well.
The Seafood Inspection Program entered into a contractual arrangement with the University of
Florida for the University to provide training to State employees to increase the number of sensory
assessors available to analyze samples.
The first of several training sessions will be held starting June 1, in Pascagoula, MS.
Oil has returned to several areas where seafood samples were collected last week. These areas
.
However oil sheen has returned to these areas and
were under consideration for
1) NOM staff, in coordination with DOl, will008778

provide a briefing on the NRDA process to the Staff
Leads of the Louisiana-Mississippi Ecosystem Restoration Working Group, as well as additional
staff from CEQ and OMB on Tuesday June 1 at 12:00 pm EDT. Potential implications of the spill on
Roadmap activities, as well as potential synergies between the two activities, will also be discussed.
2) NOM Sea Grant along with State partners have organized community meetings next week June
1 - 3 in Biloxi, Mobile, and Slidell to provide a forum for discussions on the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill. The goal of the meetings is to answer relevant local, state and regional questions by State and
Federal partners and agencies to empower coastal citizens to make informed personal and
community decisions regarding the Deepwater Horizon spill. Members of NOM's NRDA team will
participate in these meetings to discuss injury assessment, restoration planning, and the NRDA
process.
3) NOAA's Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program has cleared the attached
"
1) A list of all of the oil spills that NOM has responded to in the last ten years and the type of spill
(oil tanker, rig blowout, other type of vessel, etc),

2). How much funding NOM expended on those spills responses,
3) Whether a responsible party was identified, and
4) How much the responsible party paid to clean up the spill.
5) An estimate of the amount spilled and type of oil spilled (crude, jet fuel, etc.)
Press Resleases issued:
1. ) NOM Expands Fishing Closed Area in Gulf of Mexico
2. ) NOM Research Ship Gordon Gunter Expands Gulf Mission
3.) NOM Assists With Multi-Agency Effort to Decontaminate Ships Passing through Oil Spill
NO REPORT
1. ) Dell Corporation contacted staff today to008779

indicate that all orders have been processed. Servers
and larger racks are in transport via Fedex. Servers will arrive Tuesday and larger equipment
Wednesday/Thursday (due to the 3 day weekend).
Z. ) Composite statistics are being developed on the current configuration (gomex.noaa.gov) as
load is growing. This is caused by the gradual spread to NOAA organizations of the availability of
the web site. No operational anomalies have been indicated on the public facing site.
3.) Facilities modifications to accommodate additional circuits have been completed at SSMC and
Landover, Maryland clearing all facilities critical path issues with next week's installation of
additional servers.
4. ) Coordination is underway with review of prototype public site to develop improvements based
on recommendations from this morning's demo to NOAA leadership. These recommendations will
1.) Meeting with Cubans set for Tuesday, June 1st, 3:00 at State. In a conference call today
convened by the Cuba Desk, final plans for the U.S. engagement were set. There will be a briefing
on the general situation by the NIC. Experts are identified to respond to questions within NOAA's
expertise. Prior to the conference call, a call was held between Mark Miller, OIA, and DWH staff to
assure coordination on the NOAA side.
Z.) Video conference with the Bahamas scheduled for June 3rd at 3:00. Video conference
proposed and arranged by U.S. Embassy, Nassau in 'coordination with State. NOAA participants
(Brad Benggio and James Franklin) will address questions raised by Bahamians.
3.) From the interagency Gulf seafood exports meeting last week, NMFS prepared a cable for Posts
on the safety of seafood exports from the Gulf. NMFS provided responses to initial State comments.
OIA will circulate to other agencies for clearance.
NO REPORT
NOREPORT
008780
Noteworthy Developments During this Reporting
Period:
Increase of 10 turtle strandings
No stranded dolphins were reported
* For this event, a true stranding is defined as a turtle that washes ashore dead or debilitated or is
found floating dead or debilitated in the course of non -directed turtle surveys. Turtles observed
and/ or captured during directed sampling efforts are not categorized as strandings.
Sea Turtles:
238 total sea turtles verified to date within the "designated spill area" (increase of 10 from May
26)
235 Stranded (increase of 10 from May 26)
o 222 of the stranded were found dead (increase of 10 from May 26)
1 stranded dead and oiled (no change from May26)
o 3 recovered alive but died in care (no change from May 26)
o 1 turtle released alive (no change from May 26)
3 collected during directed sampling efforts (no change from May 26)
Turtle Necropsy Status (of the 222 dead stranded):
7 assessed and unable to perform necropsies (Le. advance decomposition) (no change from May
26)
17 partial necropsies (e.g. due to scavenging or autolysis) (no change from May 26)
50 full necropsies performed (no change from May 26)
148 verified strandings but animals not collected or awaiting necropsy (increase of 2 from May
26)
Of the 67 full or partial necropsies, the two primary considerations for the cause of these
Information on Signs of Oiling:
To date, visible evidence of oil has been documented externally on 1 dead stranded sea turtle that
has been examined.
To date, visible evidence of oil has been documented externally on 3 live collected sea turtles that
have been examined.
Historical Strandings:
The total number of sea turtle strandings that we have documented from the Louisiana/Texas
border through the Florida panhandle from April 30th through May 27th is 235.
This is much higher than the number of turtle strandings that have been documented in recent
years in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama during this time frame (combined range of 4-30 for
LA, MS, and AL)
o Overall Northern Gulf range for recent years has been 18-46.
o From 2005 - 2009 the number of turtle strandings for the month of May has ranged from 1 to
15 in Louisiana
o From 2005 - 2009 0 to 13 in Mississippi
o From 2005 - 2009 1 to 15 in Alabama.
o In the Florida panhandle, from 2003 - 2007, the number of strandings in May has ranged from
13 to 37.
There has been an increase in awareness and human presence in the northern Gulf of Mexico,
008781
Tony Penn.
Phil
Gray
Kenney
Andy
008782
Joe Klimavicz
Jim Turner
Lois Schiffer
Sally Yozell
008783
John Oliver
008784
008789
Got Mass Balance Oil Budget?
Subject: Got Mass Balance Oil Budget?
From: "william.conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>

Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 11 :43:04 -0400
To: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
11m just full of questions.
Is the NIC Solutions Group still working on an oil budget?
(is Lehr involved) and when it might be done?
Are you working today?
If so, do you know who
From offsite or at the NIC?
Thanks.
Bill
William G. Conner, Ph.D.

Chief, HAZMAT Emergency Response Division
NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
10ft
9/27/20102:04 PM
008790
Re: Got Mass Balance Oil Budget?
Subject: Re: Got Mass Balance Oil Budget?

Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 09:20:04 -0700
To: "william.conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
The NOAA team is working offsite this weekend unless called in. Got tagged for an
update to the marsh response one pager (based on the input we received from USDA
and 001. Mary Evans has the action on that and she also put together a great ppt
on marsh techniques. Do you want me to send you a copy?
The FRTG Mass balance (eg oil budget) team was headed by a USGS person - I can get
the details of who was on the team if you need it. I think Bill was only
peripherally involved because of his full engagement as leader of the plume team.
A bullet from yesterday's "what we are dOing" for the IASG said FRTG assisting Situation Unit with validating assumptions for daily Oil Budget
(mass balance) report.
Again I can get details if you need them. The CG does a daily oil budget (the one
that Doug and I assisted with but requested anonymity) but it is a closely held
piece of data. In light of the new flow rate estimates I can understand why they
need help updating it. If you have had a chance to see any of the preliminary
report from the FRTG on the Mass Balance I believe some of their assumptions may
attract challenge when published. One example was that they used the fancy NASA
plane to calculate a floating oil quantity (from 1 flight on May 17). They
calculated that the aircraft flew over only 15% of the slick and then assumed that
the area flown was representative of the entire surface expression. Hmmmm. By the
way the advertised flow rate estimate of 12,000 - 19,000 bbls/day is based on this
team. The flow rate is an average from April 22 - May 17.
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Flow-Rate-Group-Provides-PreliminaryBest-Estimate-Of-Oil-Flowing-from-BP-Oil-Well.cfm
Mark
william. conner wrote:

I'm just full of questions.
!
I

(is Lehr involved) and when it might be done?
If so, do you know
l who
Are you working today?
I! Thanks.
I
!
Bill
1 of 1
9/27/20102:04 PM
008791
Subject: Re: Got Mass Balance Oil Budget?

Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 12:22:54 -0400
Thanks, Mark.
I don't need anything more right now.
I would just lose track of
it.
NOAA team is working offsite this weekend unless called in. Got tagged for
; an update to the marsh response one pager (based on the input we received from
I USDA and 001. Mary Evans has the action on that and she also put together a
I great ppt on marsh
. Do you want me to send you a copy?
I The
I
; The FRTG Mass balance (eg oil budget) team was headed by a USGS person - I can
! get the details of who was on the team if you need it. I think Bill was only
l peripherally involved because of his full engagement as leader of the plume
! team. A bullet from
's "what we are doing" for the IASG said t
\ FRTG assisting Situation Unit with validating assumptions for daily Oil
balance) report.
I (mass
1
I-lone
Again I can get details if you need them. The CG does a daily oil budget (the
that Doug and I assisted with but requested anonymity) but
is a closely
it
. held piece of data. In

of the new flow rate estimates I can understand why
! they need help updating it. If you have had a chance to see any of the
I preliminary report from the FRTG on the Mass Balance I believe some of their
! assumptions may attract challenge when published. One example was that they used
! the fancy NASA
to calculate a floating oil quantity (from 1 flight on May
117). They calculated that the aircraft flew over only 15% of the slick and then
; assumed that the area flown was representative of the entire surface expression.
I Hmmmm. By the way the advertised flow rate estimate of 12/000 - 19,000 bbls/day
! is based on this team. The flow rate is an average from April 22 - May 17.
il http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Flow-Rate-Group-Provides-Preliminary-
! Best-Estimate-Of-Oil-Flowing-from-BP-Oil-Well.cfm
if Mark
I!
i william. conner wrote:

i I'm just full of questions.
I.I I.

who (is Lehr involved) and when it might be done?
IIAre you working today?
If so, do you know
'
II Thanks.
f Bill

)
lof2
9/27/20102:04 PM
20f2
008792
9/27/2010 2:04 PM
Re: Mass Balance
008793
Subject: Re: Mass Balance

Date: Mon, 31 May 201011:40:51 -0700
To: "frank.csulak" <Frank.Csulak@noaa.gov>
CC: catherine_cesnik@ios.doLgov
Frank,
We have extracted ourselves from the Oil Budget/Mass Balance. There is a Flow Rate
Group (FRTG) led by Dr. Marcia McNutt that contains a Mass Balance team
as part of the flow rate estimation. I am not sure their report has been released
yet but have cc'd the DOl coordinator on this email. Also the N+C Sit Unit here is
calculating an oil budget on a daily basis for the NlC and Sec of HS (closely held
numbers). I would have the folks requesting this to ask what the status of that
calculation is (if it is shareable). Also the last status report I saw was that
the FRTG gang was helping to update the NlC oil budget with their findings.
For some info on the FRTG check out:
http://www.doi.qov/news/pressreleases/Flow-Rate-Group-Provides-PreliminaryBest-Estimate-Of-Oil-Flowing-from-BP-Oil-Well.cfm
Mark
frank.csulak wrote:
Mark, USCG requesting mass balance analysis, specifically volume (gallons/bbls)
lof surface oil. Can be broken down into heavy, medium, light. I just arrived in
f Robert today and was asked by USCG to provide this. I understand that we have
! been working on this for a while. Thanks, Frank
lofl
9/27/2010 2:04 PM
Re: Mass Balance
008794

From: "Cesnik, Catherine M" <Catherine_Cesnik@ios.doi.gov>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 14:47:25 -0400
To: IIIMark.W.Miller@noaa.govlll <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>, "'Frank. Csulak@noaa.gov'fI

<Frank.Csulak@noaa.gov>, "Labson, Victor F" <vlabson@usgs.gov>, "Garcia, Martha N"
<mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Hi Frank,
By this email I'm looping in Victor Labson, USGS who is coordinating the mass
balance issue for the FRTG.
Please coordinate with him on any mass balance issues coming you way.
Catherine
----- Original Message ----From: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To: frank.csulak <Frank.Csulak@noaa.gov>
Cc: Cesnik, Catherine M
Sent: Mon May 31 14:40:51 2010
Frank,
We have extracted ourselves from the Oil Budget/Mass Balance. There is a
Flow Rate Techical Group (FRTG) led by Dr. Marcia McNutt that contains a
Mass Balance team as part of the flow rate estimation. I am not sure
their report has been released yet but have cc'd the DOl coordinator on
this email. Also the NIC Sit Unit here is calculating an oil budget on a
daily basis for the NIC and Sec of HS (closely held numbers). I would
have the folks requesting this to ask what the status of that
calculation is (if it is shareable). Also the last status report I saw
was that the FRTG gang was helping to update the NIC oil budget with
their findings.
For some info on the FRTG check out:
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Flow-Rate-Group-Provides-PreliminaryBest-Estimate-Of-Oil-Flowing-from-BP-Oil-Well.cfm
Mark
frank.csulak wrote:
USCG requesting mass balance analysis, specifically volume
I (gallons/bbls) of surface oil. Can be broken down into heavy, medium,
i light. I just arrived in Robert today and was asked by USCG to
!I provide this. I understand that we have been working on this for a
. while. Thanks, Frank
I Mark,
10ft
9/27/20102:04 PM
008795
Re: Mass Balance

From: "frank.csulak" <Frank.Csulak@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 19:03:20 -0400
To: "Cesnik, Catherine Mil <Catherine_Cesnik@ios.doi.gov>
CC: IIIMark.W.Miller@noaa.govlll <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "Labson, Victor F"
<vlabson@usgs.gov>, "Garcia, Martha N" <mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Capt. Hanzalik here in Robert has made a request to NOAA asking what is the volume
of the surface oil footprint in gallons. Would be especially
if could
categorize based on heavy, medium and light concentrations. According to Capt.
Hanzalik need asap. Thank you, Frank
Cesnik, Catherine M wrote:
I Hi Frank,
!;
! By this email I'm looping in Victor Labson, USGS who is coordinating the mass
! balance issue for the FRTG.
I
! Please coordinate with him on any mass balance issues coming you way.
l
Catherine
I ----From:
I
Original Message ----Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

To: frank.csulak <Frank.Csulak@noaa.gov>
I Cc: Cesnik, Catherine M
I Sent: Mon May 31 14:40:51 2010
I
I
i
1 Frank,
i
I
I We
have extracted ourselves from the Oil Budget/Mass Balance. There is a Flow
Techical Group (FRTG) led by Dr. Marcia McNutt that contains a Mass Balance
II team as
of the flow rate estimation. I am not sure their report has been
! released
but have cc'd the DOl coordinator on this email. Also the NIC Sit
I Unit here is calculating an oil budget on a daily basis for the NIC and Sec of
HS (closely held numbers). I would have the folks requesting this to ask what
I the status of that calculation is (if it is shareable). Also the last status
report I saw was that the FRTG gang was helping to update the NIC oil budget
with their findings.
! Rate
I
!
I For
some info on the FRTG check out:
!'.~
l
!http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Flow-Rate-Group-Provides-Preliminary!Best-Estimate-Of-Oil-Flowing-from-BP-Oil-Well.cfm
I1
Mark
I,',',
frank.csulak wrote:
II
i
III
Ii
t
Mark, USCG requesting mass balance analysis,

(gallons/bbls) of surface oil. Can be broken
I just arrived in Robert today and was asked
understand that we have been working on this
specifically volume
down into heavy, medium, light.
by USCG to provide this. I
for a while. Thanks, Frank
IIIt
I!!
!
~--------------------------------------~\
Frank Csulak <frank.csulak@noaa.gov>
I
I
lof2
9/27/20102:04 PM
Re: Mass Balance
008796

U.S. Department of Commerce
NOMINOS/ORRIERD
2of2
9/27/20]02:04 PM
008797
Re: Mass Balance

From: Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 22:23:35 -0400
To: "frank.csulak" <Frank.Csulak@noaa.gov>, Catherine Cesnik
<Catherine_Cesnik@ex.ios.doLgov>
CC: IIIMark.W.Miller@noaa.govlll <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Martha N Garcia
<mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Sorry to have taken so long, I was traveling East today. I'll be in DC/Reston the
rest of the week.
I have the numbers the Capt has requested. Some of the numbers are as yet
unreleased. The released number for May 17 are 130,000 to 150,000 barrels of oil
on the sea surface. I do have breakdowns of sheen, dull, and thick oil in this
accounting
How would you like this information communicated to the Capt?
Vic
Original Message ----From: "frank.csulak" [Frank.Csulak@noaa.gov]
Sent: 05/31/2010 07:03 PM AST
To: Catherine Cesnik
Cc: "'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; Victor Labson; Martha
Garcia
Capt. Hanzalik here in Robert has made a request to NOAA asking what is the volume
of the surface oil footprint in gallons. Would be
helpful if could
categorize based on heavy medium and light concentrations. According to Capt.
Hanzalik need asap. Thank you, Frank
I
Cesnikl Catherine M wrote:

Frank,
I Hi
!I By
this email I'm looping in Victor Labson, USGS who is coordinating the mass
\
1 balance issue for the FRTG.
I Please
Coordinate with him on any mass balance issues coming you way.
,i Catherlne
. Cesn
I
----Original
From: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
lTo: frank.csulak <Frank.Csulak@noaa.gov>

Cc: Cesnik, Catherine M
Sent: Mon May 31 14:40:51 2010
II
IFrank,
!
We have extracted ourselves from the Oil Budget/Mass Balance. There is a Flow
Rate Techical Group (FRTG} led by Dr. Marcia McNutt that contains a Mass Balance
! team as part of the flow rate estimation. I am not sure their report has been
ireleased yet but have ccrd the Dor coordinator on this email. Also the Nrc Sit
iUnit here is calculating an oil budget on a daily basis for the NIC and Sec of
] of2
9/27/20102:04 PM
008798
Re: Mass Balance
i HS
(closely held numbers). I would have the folks requesting this to ask what
is (if it is shareable). Also the last status
gang was help.ing to update the NIC oil budget
I the status of that calculation

i report I saw was that the FRTG
I with their findings.
I
! For
some info on the FRTG check out:
I! http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Flow-Rate-Group-Provides-Preliminarylj Best-Estimate-Of-Oil-Flowing-from-BP-Oil-Well.cfm
!
! Mark
I! frank. csulak wrote:

Mark, USCG requesting mass balance analysis,
fically volume
(gallons/bbls) of surface oil. Can be broken down into heavy, medium, light.
I just arrived in Robert today and was asked by OSCG to provide this. I
understand that we have been working on this for a while. Thanks, Frank
2of2
9/27/20102:04 PM
FW: CAT RFI 0455-10-13Ilmpacted Parsh Graphics for HUD
008802
Subject: FW: CAT RFI 0455-10-131 Impacted Parsh.Graphics for HUD

From: "NIC-RFI-2, User EMC" <NIC-RFI-2@uscg.mil>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:03:44 -0400
CC: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit <NIC-HQ-Situation-Unit@uscg.mil>
Mr. Miller sir,
Below is the original request that came from the HUD regarding long-term
trajectories as discussed.
Due to the potential economic impact as a result of the oil spill in the Gulf,
HUD is considering issuing a notification to lenders to encourage lenders to
provide a special forbearance to borrowers/residents who have been affected by
the spill and have lost income/work/etc. So that HUD may estimate the budget
implications based on the number of potential mortgages, HUD is looking for a
graphical representation, or other suitable documentation, that shows in fairly
granular detail:
What of the same can be expected to be affected in the near future based on
modeling (2- 4 weeks out). HUD realizes this is difficult - but provide what you
can, and HUD will extrapolate. The projection is so they can review and be
prepared if we can identify the probability and projections for them.
vir,
LT Christine Kimak
National Incident Command (NIC)
Situation Unit
24 hour Hotline - (202) 372-1710
10f2
9/27/20102:04 PM
FW: CAT RFI 0455-10-131 Impacted Parsh Graphics for HUD
20f2
008803
9/27/20102:04 PM
008806
Re: [Fwd: FW: CAT RFI 0455-\ 0-13 I Impacted Parsh Graphics fOT ...
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.

Oceanographer
NOAA/NOS/OR&R
7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98115
2of2
voice
fax
main reception
. 9/27/20}0 2:04 PM
008807
Re: Sorry to lose you
Subject: Re: Sorry to lose you

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:36:50 -0400
To: Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Here is the oil budget discussion. Please do not forward
but the discussion is still useful.
- all the numbers are out of date
Martha N Garcia wrote:

What's up
Martha N. Garcia, Chief of Staff
Senior Advisor for Biology
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.qov
703 648-6960
703 648-4039 fax
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)
Mass Balance explanations-1.docx
lofl
application/vnd.openxmlformatsII
ffi
.
0 Icedocument.wordprocesslngml.document.
C
t t T
.
on en ype.
9/27/20102:04 PM
008808
Estimating oil spill volume by visual appearance is an approximation at best. The Unified Command is
. responding to this incident with all available assets. The 5000 bbl/day number is understood by all
involved to be a working num ber and is not the definitive estimate of the spill. If any of the subsea
containment efforts are effective and oil is recovered into surface tankers, we will have a much more
accurate basis for estimating the release rate. When the well is finally contained, there will be time to
conduct a thorough assessment of the total volume released and potential daily rates. Such an
estimation process was used for the 1979 IXTOC spill, and a consensus range was developed of 113 to
300 million gallons of oil. It is important to note that even in a spill involving a finite source that is
readily gauged, such as a leaking tanker, determination of the volume spilled can takeweeks or months.
The Bonn Agreement Oil Appearance Code was developed by European Countries as the standard
method for assessing the volume of oil on water. This framework is'included in NOAA documents such
as our Open water job aid:
http:Uresponse.restoration.noaa.gov/book shelf/1462 FINAL%200WJA%202007.pdf. Other experts
are certainly free to make their own calculations, and depending on the assumptions used for such
factors as patchiness, oil evaporation, emulsification, dispersion, and other natural processes that
spread and weather the oil, one could calculate a very different number. We do not believe that a
different estimate would change the posture of the operational response.
NOAA used the following assumptions:
Slick size of 2,000 to 3,000 km2 based on satellite and overflight information.
We estimated that 2,000 km2 was covered by a continuous silvery grey sheen, with an average
thickness of 0.1 micron. This thickness estimate is the midpoint of silver grey sheen in page 11
of our job aide. This equates to 200 MT (1260 bbls, or 53,000 gallons).
We estimated that 200 km2 was covered by heavy oil, with an average thickness of 100 microns,
and 50% water content. This is the mid-point estimate oftransitional dark oil in page 11. This
equates to a volume of 1000 MT (6,290 bbls, or 264,000 gallons)
Based on these numbers, we estimated that approximately 10,000 bbls was on the water
surface. Because of oil evaporation, burning, dispersion, etc, we estimated that a release rate of
approximately 5,000 bbls per day would have been necessary to see a slick of 10,000 bbls.
We also spoke with BP experts who were viewing the release points via ROV. The plumes
contain gas bubbles, oil droplets, and entrained seawater and perhaps 50% was oil. Their verbal
descriptions were consistent with approximately 5000 bbls a day being released.

008809
The table below represents a range of release rates and numbers associated with those ranges to create
a draft oil budget. The Mass Balance that was developed following t he IXTOC oil spill 1979 is provided
as a comparison. The 5,000 bbls/day estimate is based on NOAA's preliminary estimation of the spill
volume from April 26, 2010. The 25,OOObbls/day estimate is a number reported in the media by
Skytruth. These daily rates were multiplied by 21 days to get the total estimated volume released to
date. This time period assumes that oil was released from the first day of the incident. This may
overstate the time period as the release may.not have begun until the rig sank.
! Released
Evaporated
Skytruth (bbl)
NOAA (bbl)
525,000
10,5000
162,750
43,050
Natural Dispersion
Amount Burned
Mechanically recovered
Chemical Dispersion
.5ubtC>taLleft floating
Stranded on shorelines
10
Sunken
Left floating
?
-2,790
The primary fates of the oil are evaporation, natural dispersion, and cleanup. We developed estimates
for each of these fates based on oil weathering models and reports from the USCG on burning,
skimming, and chemical dispersion.
Evaporated and Natural Dispersed: Based on two similar south Louisiana crude oils (Main Block 41,
and Mississippi Canyon 194) in the NOAA Adios database, we estimate that about half the oil that
reaches the surface will be lost to a combination of evaporation and natural dispersion. This oil is lighter
than the IXTOC oil, therefore allowing us to look at the extensive studies from the IXTOC spill to make
some conservative estimates of the ultimate fate of this spill.
In Situ Burning: According to AI Allen, Spilltec,.approximately 10,000 bbls of oil were successfully burned
during on water burning operations.
Mechanical Recovery: According to reports from the USCG approximately 9S,238bbls of water/oil
mixture were mechanically recovered and USCG assumes 30% oil content.
Chemical Dispersion: According to reports from the USCG, approximately 9,500 bbls of chemical
dispersants have been applied and a 5-15% efficacy range is assumed. However, a more precise
estimation would require daily information on sorties and number of hours of subsea application. These
numbers exist but were not readily.

008810
Stranded Oil: Shoreline impacts have been light thus far." We used a place-holder estimate of
approximately 10 barrels.
Submerged Oil: Some oil may be lost to sinking; an estimate has not been made at this time.
Monitoring snares have been deployed in different locations, but have not shown any evidence of oiling
thus far.
NOTE: The process of estimating oil budgets relies on a combination of modeling and observation.
Uncertainties are very large even under the best of conditions. At this point in the spill the observations
made of the spill on the surface, on the beach, and at the well head are not nearly detailed enough to
make meaningful assessments of the volume of oil on or under the water. Even the release rate from
the well head has such a large uncertainty associated with it that piecing together a reasonable picture
of how much oil has been released and its fate.

008811
FW: Deepwaterl FW: LRM [KDB-III-133] HHS Oversight Testimo ...
Subject: FW: Deepwater/ FW: LRM [KDB-111-133] HHS Oversight Testimony on Food
Safety Implications of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
From: "Velde, Blake" <Blake.Velde@dm.usda.gov>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:04:40 -0400
To: "Lopez, Rafael" <Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller - NOAA
<Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>
In case you guys hadn't seen yet. ..
Thanks!
Blake
*******************************************************
Blake T. Velde, Sr. Environmental ScientistiUSDA NRT Member
USDA Office of Procurement & Property MangementlEMD
1400 Independence S W MS-9\ 00
Washington DC 20250-9\ 00
Blake.Velde@dm.usda.gov
W: 202205 0906
C: 202 536 8580
F: 20240\ 4770
********************************************************
From: Yezak, Jennifer
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 9:01 AM
To: Palmieri, Suzanne; Velde, Blake; O'Brien, Doug
Cc: Maisel, Chad; Griffis, Janice; Gonzales, Oscar; Deepwater
Subject: Deepwater/ fIN: LRM [KDB-111-133] HHS Oversight Testimony on Food Safety Implications of the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Importance: High
In OMB clearance - OCR coordinating
DEADLINE: 12pm Mondav, June ]4.20]0

Attached for review is draft HHS/ FDA oversight testimony regarding the food safety and
public health effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf.
From: Allen, Julie -USDA
To: Allen, Julie -USDA; Blue, Rebecca; Brown, Shirley -aCE; Crandall, Doug; Dyer, Monet; Green, Jackie
-OBPA; Griffis, Janice; Hannigan, Erin; Holmes, Annette -OCE; JAMES, MAUREEN; KNIPE, MICHAEL; Lornethia
Rich-OGC; Lorraina Meredith-OBPA; May, Tina; McFarland, Lilia; Mike Young-OBPA; Myrlyn Woodard-OBPA;
Patel, Rohan; Tucker, William -OBPA
Cc: Berge, John; Yezak, Jennifer
Subject: FW: LRIVl [KDB-111-133] HHS Oversight Testimony on Food Safety Implications of the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill
Importance: High
100
9/27/20102:04 PM
008812
FW: Deepwater! FW: LRM [KDB-l 1 1-133] IffiS Oversight Testirno...
From: Brown, Kelly D. [mallto:Kelly_D._Brown@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 11,201011:00 PM

To:
CC: Ericsson, Sally C.; Irwin, Janet E.; Barringer, Jody M.; Hart, Nicholas R.; Mancini, Dominic J.; Laity, James
A.; Crutchfield, J C.; Hickey, Michael; Sharp, Emily L.; Burnett, Benjamin; carroll, J. Kevin; Mertens, Richard A.;
Mertens, Steven 1\1.; August, Lisa L.;
Aitken, Steven D.; Luczynski,
Kimberley S.; Bansal, Preeta D.; Bershteyn, Boris; Maher, Jessica A.; Oleske, James M.; Ortiz, Michael;
Heimbach, James T.; Wilson, Denise R.; Papa, Jim; Jukes, James J.; Burnim, John D.; Zients, Jeffrey D.;
Tynan, Susan R.; Liebman, Jeffrey B.; Fitzpatrick, Michael A.; Briggs, Xavier; Eltrich, Katherine A.; Schenewerk,
caryn B.; Fisher, Alyssa D.; Gordon, Robert M.; Mas, Alex; Higginbottom, Heather A.; Monje, carlos A.; Onek,
Matthew M.; Lew, Ginger; Furman, Jason L.;
Avery, Heidi E.; Farr, Elizabeth A.; Rouse,
Cecilia E.; Green, Jason G.; Greenawalt, Andrei M.; Bhowmik, Rachana; I\labors, Robert L.; Konwinski, Lisa M.;
Bordoff, Jason E.; Boots, Michael J.; carson l Jonathan K.; Sweetnam, Glen E.; Abbott, Shere; Munoz, Cecilia;
Shapiro, Nicholas S.; Terrell, Louisa; Stoneman, Shelly 0.; Reed, Richard A.; Egan, Brian J.; Bahar, Michael;
Lerner, Jeffrey B.; Hawkins, Stacey T.; Meltzerl Daniel; Dillon, Patrick; Espinel, Zulima L.; Tchen, Tina; LUI
Christopher P.; Kamoiel Brian E.; Severn, Deborah;
Kimball, Astri B.; LaBolt, Ben; Baer, Kenneth
S.; Zaidi, Ali A.; Berman, Lindsey R.; Menter, Jessica N.; Kitti, carole; Kinneen, Kelly; Glickman, Gary L.;
Brown, James A.; Green, Richard E.; Pasquantino, John; Sheehey, Kathryn D.; Gonzalez, Oscar; Shoemate,
Rachel; Brown, Kelly D.; Rodgers, Marshall J.; Kelly, Kenneth S.; Curtin,.Edna F.; Tuss, Taryn L.; Hopkins,
Marissa c.; Abrams, Andrew; Hazelgren, Mark H.; Frey, Nathan J.; Williams, Thomas R.; Ebner, Eugene M.;
Waxman, Gary; Feezle, William R.; Middleton, Julie V.; Fitter, E. Holly; Levenbach, Stuart; Kariampuzha,
Irene; Weinberg, Jeffrey A.; canfield, Anna G.; Ventura, Alexandra; Singiser, Dana E.; Fontenot, Keith J.;
Reilly, Thomas M.; Garufi, Marc; Davenport, Joanne Chow; Bar-Shalom, Avital; Gera, Jennifer; Mignone, Laurie
A.; Grippando, Hester C.; Lopata, Aaron M.; Schmitt, Tricia A.; Crowley, Jeffrey S.; Kadakia, Pooja; Lew,
Shoshana M.; Sunstein, cass R.
Subject: LRM [KDB-111-133] HHS Oversight Testimony on Food Safety Implications of the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill
DEADLINE: 12pm Mondav, June 14,2010

Attached for review is draft HHSI FDA oversight testimony regarding the food safety and
public health effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf.
L~ID:KDB-111-133
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF 1HE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
Friday, June 11,2010
TO: Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution
FROM: PASQUANTINO, JOHN (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
SUBJECT: L~ [KDB-111-133] HHS Oversight Testimony on Food Safety Implications of the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
OMB CONTACT: BROWN, KELLY
E-Mail: Kelly D. Brown@omb.eop.gov
PHONE: (202) 395-4865
2of3
9/27/20102:04 PM
008813
FW: Deepwaterl FW: LRM [KDB-III-133] HHS Oversight Testimo...
FAX: (202) 395-6148

In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your agency on the above subject
before advising on its rdationship to the program of the President. By the deadline above, please reply
bye-mail or telephone, using the OMB Contact information above.
Please advise us if this item will affect direct spending or receipts for the purposes of the Statutory
Pay-as-You-Go Act of 2010.
Thank you.
.
Deepwater testimony
Content-Descnptlon: FDA cleared.doc
Deepwater testimony FDA cleared.doc Content-Type:
Content-Encoding:
30f3
application/msword
base64
9/27/20]02:04 PM
008814
~~.,
( ...ttt..
,~~
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTIl AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Silver Spring, MD 20993
STATEMENT OF
MICHAEL R. TAYLOR, J.D.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR FOODS
u.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
HEARING ON
HEALTH IMPACTS OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL
JUNE 15,2010
RELEASE ONLY UPON DELIVERY
008815
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Committee, I am Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for
Foods at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency), an agency of the Department
of Health and Human Services. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss FDA's role in helping
to protect the American public from negative health impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spilL
FDA is an active and integral part of the federal government's comprehensive, coordinated,
multi agency program to ensure that seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is free from contamination
as a result of the spilL This program is important not only for consumers who need to know their
food is untainted, but also for the fisheries industry, which needs to be able to sell its products
with confidence.
On May 17, FDA established an Incident Management Group (lMG) to oversee and effectively
coordinate issues related to the oil spill. The IMG is coordinating activities and monitoring
issues that include fish and shellfish safety, protocols for the testing of seafood samples, and
requests from federal and state agencies for FDA assistance.
FDA is working closely with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other Federal agencies, and state authorities in the
regions affected by the oil spill. We are taking a multi-pronged approach to ensure that marketed
seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is not contaminated. These measures include the precautionary
closure of fisheries, surveillance and testing of seafood products, and FDA's Hazard Analysis
and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations. Beyond our immediate concern with ensuring
that currently-marketed seafood is free of contamination, FDA and NOAA are developing strict
protocols for reopening closed Gulf fisheries, in a manner that ensures the safety of product from
those areas.
CLOSURES
The primary preventative control for protecting the public from potentially contaminated seafood
is the closure of fishing areas in the Gulf that have been or are likely to be affected by the oil
spill. NOAA has the authority to close federal waters to commercial and recreational fishing,
and states have the authority to close waters within their state jurisdictional limits. FDA is
working with both NOAA and the states to ensure that appropriate closures are in place.
As of June 8, NOAA has closed to fishing Gulf waters that are known to be affected by oil,
either on the surface or below the surface, as well as areas projected to be affected by oil within
72 hours and a five nautical mile safety zone around those areas. The states of Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi have closed portions of their coastal waters to recreational and
commercial fishing and the states of Florida and Texas are closely monitoring their waters in
conjunction with FDA and other agencies.
008816
SURVEILLANCE
NOAA is collecting a variety of types of seafood samples including finfish, shrimp, crabs, and
shellfish from the Gulf for analysis. FDA and NOAA are actively monitoring seafood caught
just outside of closed federal areas, and testing it for both petroleum compounds and dispersants,
to ensure that closed areas are sufficiently protective so that tainted seafood will not enter the
marketplace.
Samples are compared to the baseline samples from unaffected areas, as well as samples taken
after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These baseline and post hurricane samples demonstrate that
Gulf seafood had low levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), a primary contaminant
of concern in oil, prior to the spill. They provide a comparative standard for safety in the region
following the spill.
.
FDA is also implementing a surveillance sampling program targeting seafood products at Gulf
Coast seafood processors. The Agency will be targeting oysters, crabs and shrimp, which could
retain contaminants longer than finfish. This sampling will provide verification that seafood on
the market is safe to eat.
TESTING
FDA brings considerable technical expertise to this situation in terms of collecting and analyzing
seafood. The testing already underway and being planned covers several areas. These include
baseline testing of seafood in oil-free areas for future comparisons; surveillance testing to ensure
that seafood from areas near to closed fisheries are not contaminated; testing as part of the
reopening protocol to determine whether an area is producing seafood safe for consumption; and
market testing to ensure that the closures are keeping contaminated food off the market. Results
of the testing and sampling times and locations will be made available to the public.
Testing involves two steps - including both a sensory and a chemical analysis offish and
shellfish. The sensory standard for comparison is based on samples of surface water mixed with
a combination of oil and dispersants. Sensory experts check the scent and look of raw seafood,
and the taste and scent of cooked seafood. Chemical analysis of oil allows scientists to
conclusively determine whether contaminants are present in fish or shellfish tissue that would be
consumed, and if so at what level, and whether the contaminants are due to the spill or related
clean-up activities. The current science does not suggest that dispersants bioaccumulate in
seafood. NOAA, however, is conducting studies to look at that issue. FDA will be closely
reviewing the results of those studies. If the studies provide new information, that will be taken
into consideration in management of the effects of the spill with regard to seafood safety.
FDA has deployed its Mobile Chemistry Laboratory to the Florida Department of Agriculture in
Tallahassee, which will be used to run chemical analyses for select volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The technique will screen seafood samples for volatile headspace chemical compounds
that may be indicative of petroleum taint. FDA has seven employees currently deployed to the
Mobile Lab.
2
008817
FDA's Arkansas Regional Laboratory has begun to test Gulf seafood samples, while three
additional FDA field laboratories and state labs in California, Florida, Arizona and Wisconsin
that are members of FDA's Food Emergency Response Network (FERN) continue to work on
the implementation of testing protocols and methodology for PAH. These laboratories are
expected to be ready to begin running samples by the end of June, and additional state and
federal labs are also preparing to assist in the sample analysis.
HACCP
The existing framework of FDA's Seafood HACCP program is proving its value in the context
of this extraordinary public health effort. These science-based regulations, issued in 1997,
initiated a landmark program to increase the margin of safety that U.S. consumers already
enjoyed and to reduce seafood related illnesses to the lowest possible levels.
The FDA's seafood HACCP regulation requires processors to identify and control hazards which
are reasonably likely to occur. FDA will reissue existing guidance to seafood processors that
explains how they can meet their obligation under the regulation to ensure that they are not
receiving fish from waters that are closed by federal or state authorities. The Agency is also
increasing inspections of facilities that may be processing seafood from affected areas.
REOPENING
FDA and NOAA have agreed on a protocol that sets the health standard for what seafood in the
Gulf is considered safe to consume, as well as a process for determining when closed federal
waters can be re-opened. Under the protocol, waters impacted by oil will not re-open until oil
from the spill is no longer observable and seafood samples from the area successfully pass both
sensory analysis by trained screeners and chemical analysis to ensure there are no harmful oil
products found in them. With respect to PAH and other possible chemical contaminants, the
reopening criteria include quantitative limits that will help ensure that seafood harvested from
reopened waters will be as safe as seafood taken prior to the oil spill.
NOAA and FDA will work to re-open previously closed areas as quickly as possible in order to
minimize the impact of closures on fishermen and coastal communities. The two agencies have
held multiple discussions with state officials in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
Florida to discuss the protocol for reopening waters closed in response to the oil spill. We are
confident that the protocol used to re-open federal waters can also be used to assess the safety
of state harvest waters before they are re-opened by state agencies.
NOAA and FDA provided a copy of the re-opening protocol to the affected Gulf Coast states.
Along with the protocol, federal agencies are working to provide the States with all of the
baseline data from areas where oil from the Deepwater Horizon incident had not yet reached.
Each sample location was selected to represent the spectrum of seafood species and conditions in
the Gulf of Mexico.
3
008818
CONCLUSION
FDA, in close coordination with other federal and state agencies, has been proactive in
monitoring this disaster, planning for its impacts, and preparing our personnel and facilities to
continue to help ensure a safe food supply. The protocols and approaches we have developed
will protect the American people while minimizing the negative impact on Gulf seafood
producers and exporters.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss FDA's activities with regard to seafood safety. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status]]
008819
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status]]
From: Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:01:17 -0400
To: Judy Gray <Judy.Gray@noaa.gov>
cc: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, Chris Beaverson <Chris.Beaverson@noaa.gov>, Shelby
Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>, _OAR HQ Head Shed <oar.hq.hs@noaa.gov>
Hi Judy:
I just spoke with Mark Miller. He suggested that all the proposals that NOAA
receives should be sent to Sharon Christopherson at NOAA. She has been hired to
take care of all the proposals.
Also Mark suggested that You, Sharon and He get onto a conference call to discuss
the IATAP. Nathalie
Original Message
From: Judy Gray <Judy.Gray@noaa.gov>
Date: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:44 pm
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status]]
To: Chris Beaverson <Chris.Beaverson@noaa.gov>, Nathalie Valette-Silver
<Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>, Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>,
HQ Head Shed <oar.hg.hs@noaa.gov>
OAR

Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:57:52 -0400
From: Mike Allen <Mike.Allen@noaa.gov>
To:
Mark.Brown <Mark.Brown@noaa.gov>
CC:
Alan.Leonardi <Alan.Leonardi@noaa.gov>, Craig McLean
<Craig.Mclean@noaa.gov>, Judy Gray <Judy.Gray@noaa.gov>, Terry Bevels
<Terry.Bevels@noaa.gov>, Ken Jones <Ken.Jones@noaa.gov>,'Michael
I Uhart
<Michael.Uhart@noaa.gov>, John Cortinas <John.Cortinas@noaa.gov>
References:
<4C1642C6.5000802@noaa.gov> <4C16458C.9050702@noaa.gov>
<4C16487B.5040105@noaa.gov>
All Attached is an updated OAR list from Friday afternoon.

Mike
Mark.Brown wrote:
> Good, see at 3:00
I
I
Alan. Leonardi wrote:

Mark-
>~~>
I agree with the proposed meeting and submit for your reading
pleasure the current list of OAR proposals and activities.
Unfortunately, it is still unclear to me how we are supposed to
submit these ideas to the DWH Science Box and seek funding and/or
!l...
I
I
. I!
prioritization for the activities.
of3
Alan
9/27/20102:04 PM
II
008820
Mark.Brown wrote:
! > We will be appointing a person from the. formulation shop to work
I. on>
Steve's budget and finance committee to work with Nicole LeBoeuf.
> We need to identify our list of pending proposals/proposals past

> supported by NOAA HQ for tomorrow.
I suggest a meeting for Alan,
> John, my rep and me this afternoon at 3:00 in my office.
We have
> the Nick Shay costs, the Ravi costs, future cruises costs and the
> Fil
Deep Coral Proposal that I am aware of.
>
> -------- Original Message -------> Subject:
Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status
> Date:
Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:35:50 -0400
> From:
Steven. Gallagher <Steven.Gallagher@noaa.gov>
> <>
> To:
Philip M Kenul <Philip.M.Kenul@noaa.gov>
> <>, Steve Murawski
> <Steve.Murawski@noaa.qov> <>, Craig
> McLean <Craiq.Mc1ean@noaa.gov> <>
> CC:
Mark Brown <Mark.Brown@noaa.qov> <>,
> Christopher Cartwright <Christopher.Cartwright@noaa.gov>
> <>, John Potts
> <John.Potts@noaa.gov> <>1 Nicole Le Boeuf
> <Nicole.Leboeuf@noaa.gov> <>, Jennifer
> Werner <Jennifer.Werner@noaa.gov> <>
i >
>
f >
I,;
> Steve, Craig, Phil,
, >
j
> I have asked Nicole LeBoeuf to develop a daily tracking report to
status
> funding approvals for Gulf Oil Spill activities. We have a
I number of
I > actions that fall under various stages of approval and types of
> funding.
I would like to get this all under on roof and have a
] common
! > reference. To populate the status report, I would ask you
I provide
iI > Nicole and I with a list of your most recent list of a pending or
!
I
I
i
!
> proposed projects.
> other science box approved projects.
! and
list
>
! >
!
>
1 >
I >
>
'I
I!
This would include proposed PRFA amendments

We want to review this
at
our kick budget and finance committee meeting tomorrow.
Thanks.
Steve.
II Mike Allen
Sea Grant Fellow
I! OAR-LCI
2of3
I
9/27/2010 2:04 PM
008821
Fax: 301-713-1459
SSMC-3 Rm 11308, 1315 East West Hwy
30f3
9/27/20102:04 PM
NIe NOAA Daily Report 6/14/2010
008822
Subject: NIC NOAA Daily Report 6/14/2010

From: "Mark. W. Miller" <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:10:35 -0400
To: Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Lambert@noaa.gov>,
Ken Barton <Ken.Barton@noaa.gov>
1. This morning as part of our morning situation brief David Moore of MMS reviewed
the status of the source control. This was quite an informative presentation. A
couple of items stood out that are worthwhile to pass on. The long term recovery
system which will include a "quick disconnect" for the processing and storage
vessels is scheduled to be in place by the end of the month (approximately two
weeks). Until then if the Enterprise needs to leave station due to weather it
requires approximately six days to decouple from the riser and Top Hat. After it
returns to station it would take several more days to reconnect.
2. Took part in the discussion with USDA on the use of management practices on
farms in the Midwest to modify migratory flyways to reduce the risk of oil
contamination to the birds. The Audubon Society is
to evaluate the
effectiveness of the plan after the first implementation. They will be pursuing
potential funding vis a PRFA with NPFC but plan to proceed (if on a reduced level)
if they have to use
budgetary and private funds.
3. At the request of USCG, NOAA staff briefed DHS
Secretary Lute, FOSC
Watson and the National Response Team on the fishery closure process for Federal
waters at today's NRT call. Schedule for and timing of daily precautionary
closure determinations and announcements; strategy and criteria for reopening
closed areas, both when oil was found and when it was not; and coordination with
FDA and states on seafood
monitoring protocols was outlined.
4. USCG and NOAA staff participated on a senior-level DHS/FDA/NOAA conference call
following-up on a conversation with Louisiana Governor Jindal over the weekend
regarding a unified approach to seafood safety. FDA, NOAA and HHS will seek to
organize a conference call later this week with Gulf state fishery directors and
health commissioners to enhance intrastate and intergovernmental communication. An
upcoming workshop in New Orleans, possibly next week, on the assessment of spillrelated health effects being planned by the Institute of Medicine may provide an
additional forum to coordinate on seafood safety issues. The Administration also
is evaluating a call from members of Congress for the creation of an
intergovernmental taskforce on seafood safety to address the need for improved
coordination in light of the SP incident.
5. Reviewed the preliminary report from the Thomas Jefferson and the final draft
report for the Brooks McCall.
lof}
9/27/20102:04 PM
[Fwd: NIC NOAA Daily Report 6114/2010]
008823
Subject: [Fwd: NIC NOAA Daily Report 6/14/2010]

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:13:03 -0400
To: Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>, Ralph Lopez
<Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov>, Jason Rolfe <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>
-------- Original Message -------Subject:NIC NOAA Daily Report 6/14/2010

Date:Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:10:35 -0400
From:Mark.W.Milier <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To:Bili Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Nickie Lambert
<Nickie. Lambert@noaa.gov>, Ken Barton <Ken. Barton@noaa.gov>
1. This morning as part of our morning situation brief David Moore of

MMS reviewed the status of the source control. This was quite an
informative presentation. A couple of items stood out that are
worthwhile to pass on. The long term recovery system which will include
a "quick disconnect" for the processing and storage vessels is
scheduled to be in place by the end of the month (approximately two
weeks). Until then if the Enterprise needs to leave station due to
weather it requires approximately six days to decouple from the riser
and Top Hat. After it returns to station it would take several more days
to reconnect.
2. Took part in the discussion with USDA on the use of management
practice's on farms in the Midwest to modify migratory flyways to reduce
the risk of oil contamination 'to the birds. The Audubon Society is
planning to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan after the first
implementation. They will be pursuing potential funding vis a PRFA with
NPFC but plan to proceed (if on a reduced level) if they have to use
existing budgetary and private funds.
3. At the request of USCG, NOAA staff briefed DHS Deputy Secretary Lute,
FOSC Watson and the National Response Team on the fishery closure
process for Federal waters at today's NRT call. Schedule for and timing
of
precautionary fishery closure determinations and announcements;
strategy and criteria for reopening closed areas, both when oil was
found and when it was not; and coordination with FDA and states on
seafood safety monitoring protocols was outlined.
4. USCG and NOAA staff participated on a senior-level DHS/FDA/NOAA
conference call following-up on a conversation with Louisiana Governor
Jindal over the weekend regarding a unified approach to seafood safety.
FDA, NOAA and HHS will seek to organize a conference call later this
week with Gulf state fishery directors and health commissioners to
enhance intrastate and intergovernmental communication. An upcoming
workshop in New Orleans, possibly next week, on the assessment of
spill-related health effects being planned by the Institute of Medicine
may provide an additional forum to coordinate on seafood safety issues.
The Administration also is evaluating a call from members of Congress
for the creation of an intergovernmental taskforce on seafood safety to
address the need for improved coordination in light of the BP incident.
lof2
9/27/20102:04 PM
[Fwd: NIe NOAA Daily Report 6114/2010]
008824
5. Reviewed the preliminary report from the Thomas Jefferson and the
final draft report for the Brooks McCall.
20f2
9/27/20102:04 PM
008825
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status]]]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval StatuslJ]
From: "Mark.WMiller" <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:24:22 -0400
To: Sharon Christopherson <Sharon.Christopherson@noaa.gov>
Sharon,
I still don't quite understand how the document flow is supposed to work but thought that we would start directing them to you. If this doesn't work or there
is a problem give me a call.
Mark
- - - Original Message - Subject:Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status])
Date:Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:01:17 -0400
From:Nathalie. Valette-Silver@noaa.gov
To:Judy Gray <Judy.Gray@noaa.gov>
CC:Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov, Chris Beaverson <Chris.Beaverson@noaa.gov>, Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.goV>,_OAR HQ Head Shed
<oar.hg.hs@noaa.gov>
References:<4C 167873. 3070404@noaa.gov>
Hi Judy:
I just spoke with Mark Miller. He suggested that all the proposals that NOAA receives should be sent to Sharon Christopherson at NCAA. She
Also Mark suggested that You, Sharon and He get onto a conference call to discuss the IATAP. Nathalie
-_ ... _- Original Message
Date: Monday, June 14, 20102:44 pm
Subject: (Fwd: Re: (Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Statu.]J
To: Chris Beaverson <Chris.Seaverson@noaa.gov>, Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.qOv>1 Shelby Walker Shelby.Walker@r.oac:
:>
:>
>
>
Original Message -------Subject:

Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status)
Date:
Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:57:52 -0400
From:
Mike Allen <Mike.Allen@noaa.aov>
To: Mark.Brown <Mark.Bro...n@noaa.9olrl>
CC: Alan.Leonardi <Alan.L~onardi@noaa'9ov>t Craig McLean
<Craia.Mclean@noaa.gov>t Judy Gray <Judv.G:::a'''@noaa~QOv>, Terry Bevels
Ken Jones <Ken.Jones@noaa.qov>1 Michael

>
>
<~C16487E.
>
>
>
5-0401 OS!"lOdCl. aov>
AllAttached is an updated OAR list from Friday afternoon.

Mike
Mark.Brown wrote:
> Good, see at 3: 00
>
>
>
> Alan.Leonardi wrote:

Mark-
>
Unfortunately~ it is still unclear to me how we are supposed to
submi t these ideas to the DWH Science Box and seek fundinq and/or
>
>
>
>
>
.,.
".. Alan
;.
>
> Mark.Brown wrote:
> > We will be appointing a person from the formulation shop to work
> on
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve's budget and finance committee to work with Nicole LeBoeuf.
> supported
suggest a meeting for Alan,
> Filipe Deep coral Proposal that I am aware of.

Oriqinal Message --------
>
>

> Subject!
Mon, jq Jun 2010 10:35:50 -0400
>>> Date:
Steven. Gallagher <Steven .Gallaqher@noaa.qov>
> From:
>
>
> To:
>
>
>
>
>
We have
>>>
>
lof2
by NOAA HQ for tomorrow.
> Johnt my rep and me this afternoon at 3:00 in my office.
> <>
Philip M Kenul <Philip.M.Kenu1@noaa.oov>

> <Steve~Murawski
> <>, Craig
> McLean <Craia.
a.cov> <>
> CC:
Mark
own <Mark.Brown@noaa.gov> <>,
, Christopher Cartwright <Christopher .Cartwriqht@noaa.qov>
> <>, John Potts
9/27/20102:04 PM
008826
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status)]]
>
>
>
>
<John.Potts@noaa~gov>
<>, Nicole Le Boeuf
>>> <Nicole.Leboeuf@noaa.aov> <>, Jennifer

>>> Werner <Jennifer.Werner@noaa.qov> <>
>
>
>
>>>
>
>>>
> >>> Steve, Craig, Phil,

>>>
status
> number of
> actions that fall under various stages of approval and types of
> funding. I would like to get this all under on roof and have a
> common
> reference.
To populate the status report, I would ask you
> provide
> > Nicole and I with a list of your most recent list of a pending or
>
> > proposed projects.
This would include proposed PRF'A amendntents
> and
>>> other science box approved projects.
> list at
> > our kick budget and finance committee meeting tomorrow.
> >
>>> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Steve.
>>>
Mike Allen
>
>
OAR-LeI Sea Grant Fellow

National Oceanic and AtmospheriC Administration
>
West Hwy
20f2
9/27/20102:04 PM
008827
DWH ACTIONS and UPDATES 6.14.2010
Subject: DWH ACTIONS and UPDATES 6.14.2010

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:32:26 -0400
To: OWHleadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>
PRIORITY
RESPONSE OPERATIONS NIC/ICC/NRT
Response Operations
Source Control: Top Hat is listing approximately 10 degrees. Techni(
monitor the degree of list, but are not planning any action since the sy
consistently recovering approximately 15,000 barrels of oil per day. It
system which will include a "quick disconnect" for the processing and
scheduled to be in place in approximately two weeks. Until then, if the
leave station due to weather it will need about six days to decouple fro
more days to reconnect upon return.
ERMA: Public ERMA - geoplatform.gov - is on the JIC landing page
states, " ... the American people have questions about the response to .
NOAA launches a new federal website meant to answer those questiol
transparency- a one-stop shop for detailed near-real-time information
the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill. The website incorporates data frorr
that are working together to tackle the spill."
Shoreline: SCAT teams report 124 miles of shoreline in LA, MS, AL, F
(see attached).
NRT - See below (Fisheries Closures)
NIC Activities
Birds: Discussion with USDA on using farms in the Midwest to reducE
contamination to the birds by altering migratory flyways. The Audubon
evaluate the plan after the first implementation. If funding via PRFA I i
they plan to proceed (perhaps on a reduced level) using existing and I
Seafood Safety: Senior-level OHS/FDAlNOAA conference call regard
to seafood safety - plans made for another call later this week with Gu
and health commissioners. The Institute of Medicine plans a workshol
assessment of spill-related health effects, possibly next week. Call frc
Congress for the creation of an intergovernmental task force on seafoc
need for improved coordination in light of the DWH incident.
RESPONSE OPERATIONS NIC/ICC/NRT (2)
Fisheries Closures: At the request of USCG, NOAA staff briefed DH~

Lute, FOSC RADM Watson and the National Response Team on the fi
for Federal waters during today's NRT call. Topics included:
o Scheduling of daily precautionary fishery closure determinations anc
o Timing of announcements;
o Strategy and criteria for reopening closed areas - both with and with
o Coordination with FDA and states on seafood safety monitoring prot(
SCIENCE
attached
LMR
lof7
Fisheries Closure
... There were no modifications to the closed area in the Gulf EEZ for
. closed area remains 78,264 sq mi (202,703 sq km), or about 32% of th
Seafood Inspection
... SIP personnel traveled to Pascagoula, MS today to deliver the fine
sensory screener training. The training is scheduled for Wednesday a
be attended by all Louisiana State personnel. Once completed, SIP ""
sensory screeners.
9/27/20102:04 PM
008828
* SIP is finalizing plans for the next expert sensory harmonization to
MA from June 21 - 25. Another 14 personnel from FDA and NOAA wil
our expert sensory assessors. Once completed this will bring our avai
assessors to thirty (30).
* Steven Wilson and Michael McLaughlin of FDA finalized plans to \
electronic nose using samples from the next scheduled harmonization
a detection device that, if successful, will act as a sensory screening p
mobile laboratory. If successful, this will minimize the use of our value:
assessor resources.
* The complete seafood inspection report is attached.
Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Health and Stranding
* 411 total sea turtles verified to date within the "designated spill are
June 12 report 0363 stranded(increase of 13 from June 12)
+ 330 of the stranded were found dead (increase of 9 from,
+ 33 of the stranded were found alive (increase of 4 from Ju
+ 25 live turtles in rehabilitation (increase of 4 from June 12)
* 48 turtles collected during directed turtle sampling efforts (incre
o 42 live turtles in rehabilitation (increase of 11 from June 12)
* 211 carcasses to be necropsied, if decomposition stage warrant
June 12)
* To date, visible evidence of oil has been documented externally or
turtle and 5 live stranded turtles (2 of which were caught in skimming (
3 dead sea turtle captured during directed turtle surveys.
* 41 dolphins have been verified to date within the "designated spill
June 12).
* Issues regarding nighttime operations on sea turtle nesting beach I
the forefront again today. Communication problems and lack of adher
best management practices resulted in interference with the nest surv.
effort today by almost completely obliterating a fresh emergence and r
difficulty for the nest survey team to accurately evaluate the crawl, find
* The complete health and stranding report, turtle stranding map, al
map are attached.
LMR (2)
Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Health and Stranding

* 411 total sea turtles verified to date within the "designated spill are
June 12 report 0363 stranded(increase of 13 from June 12)
+ 330 of the stranded were found dead (increase of 9 from,
+ 33 of the stranded were found alive (increase of 4 from Ju
+ 25 live turtles in rehabilitation (increase of 4 from June 12)
* 48 turtles collected during directed turtle sampling efforts (incre
042 live turtles in rehabilitation (increase of 11 from June 12)
* 211 carcasses to be necropsied, if decomposition stage warrant
June 12)
turtle and 5 live stranded turtles (2 of which were caught in skimming (
3 dead sea turtle captured during directed turtle surveys.
* 41 dolphins have been verified to date within the "designated spill
20f7
9/27/20102:04 PM
008829
June 12).
* Issues regarding nighttime operations on sea turtle nesting beach I

the forefront again today. Communication problems and lack of ad her
best management practices resulted in interference with the nest SUrvl
effort today by almost completely obliterating a fresh emergence and r
difficulty for the nest survey team to accurately evaluate the crawl, find
* The complete health and stranding report, turtle stranding map, al
map are attached.
NRDA
NRDA (2)
30f7
1. Technical Working Group Updates

Shoreline: Four teams went out in the field to complete pre-assessmer
Pelican Island, Laneaux Island, Bastion Bay, Bay Baptiste, Whiskey Is
Chenier/Bay Island. Forensic oil sampling occurred in West-South Tel
West-Northwest Terrebonne.
Team 1 Surveyed areas of scattered tarballs and some tar patties alon
Island. 1% cover. Responded to input from Army Corps staff that oil
yesterday and headed west; consistent oiling along both sides of west
areas of scattered tarballs and some tar patties along beach (<1% to E
location); 100s of skimmers and terns, some nesting with scrapes and
Team 2 Evaluated previously mapped shoreline along the northern sh,
6/13/10, mapped the northern shore of Bay Batiste and noted heavy oi
shoreline.
Team 3 assessed marsh areas north of Whiskey Island. Waypoint an<
photographs and data sheets were collected from 19 waypoints durins
All waypoints were collected starting at the easternmost limits of SCAl
area, progressing in a westward direction. Data obtained during the d
found to coincide with existing SCAT mapping data.
Team 4 - no summary report
Sample Intake Teams - Samples processed at shoreline as of 6/13/10
Chain of Custody's processed: 242
Number of Water Bottles Received: 2589
Chemistry: As of June 14th, approximately 4500 samples have been,
NRDA baseline and pre-assessment data collection. This total consist
water samples, 20% sediment samples, and 5% or less of tissue, oil (t
product, and dispersant. Water Column: NRDA sampling activi.ties are
vessels. 3 vessels are in port.
NRDA sampling activities are ongoing aboard two vessels:
9/27/2010 2:04 PM
008830
Brooks McCall: Conducting deep water sampling 2.5 km northwest o'

southwest.
Jack Fitz: Testing equipment for deepwater sampling 2km west of thE
Ocean Veritas - In Port Fourchon (scheduled to depart 6/13). Will ha'
conducting deep water sampling.
Gordon Gunter in Port (Pascagoula, MS). Expected to get underway
Bunny Bordelon in Port (Port Fourchon, LA)
A draft plan is in the works that proposes up to five boats for doing G
Human Use: Boat ramp and shore fishing counts in LA, MS, AL, and,
continuing along North Gulf coast between LAlMS border and Appalac
SAV: Processing data from weekend surveys and identifying long-ter
sites for injury assessment phase.
Marine Mammals: The focus of the 6/13 flight was to provide the stran
sargassum locations for potential turtle rescues. No sea turtles were c
mammals were observed. Next NRDA flight scheduled for Monday, OE
4of7
ASSETS AND PLATFORMS
attached
REGIONAL
Regional staff involved with education, outreach and engagement (EO

call today with Andy Winer to coordinate constituent outreach.
LEGISLATIVE IINTERGOVT
AFFAIRS
no update
COMMS 1 PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Held GeoPlatform.gov webinar for media. Planning second session fo

*Final cleared seafood safety news release. To be issued tonight.
EXTERNAL ENGAGEMENT
Interactions:
Prepared agenda and conducted organizational call for regional outre.
representation from NOAA headquarters, the Southeast Regional Coli;
Grant.
External Affairs drafted a fact sheet for JIC approval on volunteer prog
with BP staff and representatives from four Gulf NGOs who have sigm
to head up volunteer training and programs in their respective states.
Communicated with WH/interagency group over the weekend about th
of the spill on the people of the Gulf coast after an American Psycholo
addressed this. Members of the group provided feedback on any POSI
can lend in terms of networking with mental health associations durin
Met with a Gulf outreach team assembled by EA to discuss reaching c
and forming workgroups around those sectors. We also discussed thE
meetings and outreach in the Gulf to date, re what's working weil/whai
and help.
Complaint e-mails
External Affairs received 9 emails over the weekend. We have respon(
Topics included: general complaints (NOAA should never have usedh
NOAA is misrepresenting amounts of oil in "plumes", etc). 2 suggestio
leak, and questions about the oil spill's flow rate.
Mass Notifications:
Emailed the press release on the new "one stop" website to follow
response to our NGO stakeholder list.
9/27/20102:04 PM
008831
DATA INFORMATION
Data and Information Management Daily Update-June 14,2010

-Public use of www.geoplatform.gov/gulfresponse continues to increal:
-Improvements to public ERMA application performance continued thr(
increased.
-Working with DWH Science Team on DWH data flows and storage.
-No update from EPA today on air/water quality availability for public E
IAIINTERNATIONALAFFAIRS
1. Provided geoplatform.gov press release to State so that Posts as WE

scientists can be aware and informed of the oil situation. Also shared
(from Ministry of Environment and Sport) whom Dr. Robinson met at S
2. NIC cleared on response to questions from Bahamas and forwardec
Margaret Spring, Kris Sarri, Mark Miller, and State to understand and (
clearance process.
3. Seeking to arrange meeting for Dr. Porfirio Alvarez (Mexico) with Dr.
in Washington June 15-17. Contacted Dr. Robinson regarding his ava
4. The Cuba Desk at State asked questions about the loop current an(
concerns about fishing outside U.S. EEZ (currently the closure area in
EEZ boundary). Working on responses.
5. The seafood safety cable drafted by NMFS and cleared by FDA anc
Posts. The cable is generic in nature and is meant to reassure host c(
takes seafood safety seriously and is actively working to maintain the s
exports. NOAA person assigned to Brussels will convey message to I
Key Bullets
State informed about geoplatform.gov; can pass to Posts and interne
Response to questions from Bahamas cleared by NIC and sent to JI(
Staffing visit request by Dr. Porfirio Alvarez (Mexico) for meeting with
questions from the Cuba Desk about loop current and possible fisheriE
Seafood safety cable dispatched.
LEGAL/GC
POLICY / BUDGET
no update
no update
Content-Type:
application/msword
E
d'
b
64
,NRDA Activities Report 6 14 10.doc C
ontent- nco 109: ase
-- -
OMAO_Assets_GantLChart_061410.xlsx-----------------------
application/vnd.openxmlformatsI Content-Type:
OMAO Assets Gantt Chart 061410.xlsx!
officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
I
.
i, Content-Encoding: base64
I
'
NOAA Platforms 061410.pptx
NOAA Platforms 061410.pptx Content-Type.
appl ication/vnd .openxmlformatsofficedocument.presentationml.presentation
50f7
9/27/20102:04 PM
008832
- Proposed OMAO Asset DWH Response Schedule 06141 O . d o c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Proposed OMAO Asset DWH Response Schedule 061410.doc Content-Type:

application/mswt
OMAO DWH Ship Tasking - Program Impacts 0 6 1 4 1 0 . d o c x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OMAO DWH Ship Tasking _ Program Impacts 061410.docx
C t t T
.
on en - ype.
application/vnd.opel
officedocument.wor.
- OMAO DWH Aircraft Tasking - Program Impacts 06141 O.docx -----------------
OMAO DWH Aircraft Tasking _ Program Impacts 061410.docx
C t tT
.
application/vnd.o
on en - ype.
officedocument.v
201 0_0614_Seafood Safety Daily Re po rt.d ocx ---------- .---------------------------------------- --------- ........ -- ----------------------
t tT
.
officedocument.wordprocessingm
C
2010_0614-.:.Seafood Safety Daily Report.docx
- MMST Health and Stranding Update 06-13-1 O.doc ----------------------.-.--------------------.----.-
MMST Health and Stranding Update 06-13-10.doc Content-Type:

application/msword
-DWHMC252_Turtles201 0 0 6 1 4 . p d f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DWHMC252 Turtles20100614.pdf Content-Type:

application/pdf
'Content-Encoding: base64
- DWHMC252_Dolphins201 00614.pdf-----------------------
DWHMC252 Dolphins20100614.pdf Content-Type:

application/pdf
-- ERMA_scat14JUN.pdf-------
60f7
9/27/2010 2:04 PM
008833
ERMA scat14JUN.pdf Content-Type:.

application/pdf
-----------
.
Content-Type:
application/vnd.openxmlformatsOMAO_Assets_Gantt_Chart_061410.xlsx
7of7
9/27/20102:04 PM
008834
NOAA NRDA Activities Report - June 14,2010
(Reporting Activities from June 13, 2010)
1. Technical Working Group Updates
Shoreline: Four teams went out in the field to complete pre-assessment shoreline surveys at
Pelican Island, Laneaux Island, Bastion Bay, Bay Baptiste, Whiskey Island and Point
ChenierlBay Island. Forensic oil sampling occurred in West-South Terrebonne Bay and WestNorthwest Terrebonne.
Team 1 Surveyed areas of scattered tarballs and some tar patties along beach at Pelican
Island. 1 % cover. Responded to input from Army Corps staff that oil had entered the
bayou yesterday and headed west; consistent oiling along both sides of western bayou.
Observed areas of scattered tarballs and some tar patties along beach 1 % to 5% cover,
depending on location); 100s of skimmers and terns, some nesting with scrapes and nests
with eggs.
Team 2 Evaluated previously mapped shoreline along the northern shoreline of Bay
Batiste on 6/13/1 0, mapped the northern shore of Bay Batiste and noted heavy oiling
along this entire shoreline.
Team 3 assessed marsh areas north of Whiskey Island. Waypoint and tracklog data,
photographs and data sheets were collected from 19 waypoints during the day's field
effort. All waypoints were collected starting at the easternmost limits of SCAT oil
mapping data in the area, progressing in a westward direction. Data obtained during the
day's field effort was found to coincide with existing SCAT mapping data.
Team 4 - no summary report
Sample Intake Teams - Samples processed at shoreline as of 6/13/1 0:
Chain of Custody's processed: 242
Number of Water Bottles Received: 2589
Chemistry: As of June 14th , approximately 4500 samples have been collected to support NRDA
baseline and pre-assessment data collection. This total consists of approximately 70% water
samples, 20% sediment samples, and 5% or less of tissue, oil (tarballs), oil on water product, and
dispersant.
Water Column: NRDA sampling activities are ongoing aboard 2 vessels. 3 vessels are in port.
NRDA sampling activities are ongoing aboard two vessels:
Brooks McCall: Conducting deep water sampling 2.5 km northwest of wellhead, moving
southwest.
Jack Fitz: Testing equipment for deepwater sampling 2km west of the wellhead.
Ocean Veritas - In Port Fourchon (scheduled to depart 6/13). Will have NRDA staff
conducting deep water sampling.
008835
Gordon Gunter in Port (Pascagoula, MS). Expected to get underway 6/21.
Bunny Bordelon in Port (Port Fourchon, LA)
A draft plan is in the works that proposes up to five boats for doing Gulf-wide
monitoring.
Human Use: Boat ramp and shore fishing counts in LA, MS, AL, and, FL. Overflights
continuing along North Gulf coast between LAIMS border and Appalachicola
SA V: Processing data from weekend surveys and identifying long-term sampling dates and
sites for injury assessment phase.
Marine Mammals: The focus of the 6/13 flight was to provide the stranding ground team with
sargassum locations for potential turtle rescues. No sea turtles were observed. No marine
mammals were observed. Next NRDA flight scheduled for Monday, 06-14-10.
NRDA
MS Canyon 252 Incident. Gulf of Mexico
TI'II$_ Sampling "n 6-1().2I)tQ and Obsel"o\3tioo on 6-11-2010 I DRAFT - USE ONL Y ASA GENERAL REFERENCE
ObseIvation and Sampling
6t11 Sf13, Shoreline Pre-Assessment
...
6t11, FiSh Pre-Assessment
...
6/11.'2G10, Ti$SUe
i}
6t12/2010, TISSue
:}
6112/2010, Water
O..le Produced: JUI'le 13. 2011) l00IlCDT

Cleated By: NOAA ORaR
008836
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 201018:53:26 -0400
To: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Sharon Christopherson
<Sharon.Christopherson@noaa.gov>
CC: Nathalie.valette-Silver@noaa.gov
Mark and Sharon, I have a NEP meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) from 9-2:30. I could call during transit
or at 4pm. Have you been able to get onto the homeport? I had to ask Penny for directions since I
missed the call. I have two reviews due today and I will do them as soon as I can access the
materials. Thanks! -JudyNathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov wrote:
Hi Judy:
I just spoke with Mark Miller. He suggested that all the proposals that
NOAA receives should be sent to Sharon Christopherson at NOAA. She has been
hired to take care of all the proposals.
Also Mark suggested that You, Sharon and He get onto a conference call to
discuss the IATAP. Nathalie
Original Message ----From: Judy Gray <Judy.Gray@noaa.gov>
Date: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:44 pm
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status]]
To: Chris Beaverson <Chris.Beaverson@noaa.gov>, Nathalie Valette-Silver
<Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>, Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>,
OAR HQ Head Shed <oar.hg.hs@noaa.gov>
I
i
II
j
i
!
I
I
II
II
of3

Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:57:52 -0400
To:
CC:
<Craig.Mclean@noaa.gov>, Judy Gray <Judy.Gray@noaa.gov>, Terry Bevels
<Terry.Bevels@noaa.gov>, Ken Jones <Ken.Jones@noaa.gov>, Michael
Uhart
References:
<4C16487B.5040105@noaa.gov>

Mike
Mark.Brown wrote:
> Good, see at 3:00
>
9/27/20102:04 PM
008837
> Alan.Leonardi wrote:

Mark ..:.
I
I
Unfortunately, it is still unclear to me how we are supposed to
submit these ideas to the DWH Science Box and seek funding and/or
- Alan
Mark.Brown wrote:
> We will be appointing a person from the formulation shop to work
on
> Steve's budget and finance committee to work with Nicole LeBoeuf.
> We need to identify our list of pending prop0sals/proposals past
suggest a meeting for Alan,
> John, my rep and me this afternoon at 3:00 in my office.
We have
I
l
I
I
l
.i
I
!I
> Fil{pe Deep Coral Proposal that I am aware of.

>
> -------- Original Message -------Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status
> Subject:
Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:35:50 -0400
> Date:
> From:
Steven.Gallagher <Steven.Gallagher@noaa.gov>
> <>
> To:
Philip M Kenul <Philip.M.Kenu1@noaa.gov>
> <Steve.Murawski@noaa~gov> <>, Craig
> McLean <Craig.Mclean@noaa.oov> <>
> CC:
Mark Brown <Mark.Brown@noaa.gov> <>,
> Christopher Cartwright <Christopher.Cartwright@noaa.gov>
> <>, John Potts
> <John.Potts@noaa.gov> <>, Nicole Le Boeuf
> <Nico1e.Leboeuf@noaa.gov> <>, Jennifer
> Werner <Jennifer.Werner@noaa.gov> <>
>
>
>
>
status
number of
> actions that fall under various stages of approval and types of
> funding.
I would like to get this all under on roof and have a
common
> reference. To populate the status report, I would ask you
provide
> Nicole and I with a list of your most recent list of a pending or
,I
!
I!
t
I,
I
20f3
I
I.
> proposed projects. This would include proposed PRFA amendments

and
> other science box approved projects.
list at
9/27/20JO 2:04 PM
RE: Oil to water mix from skimming
008841
Subject: RE: Oil to water mix from skimming

From: "McKenna, Robert CDR" <Robert.E.McKenna@uscg.mil>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:57:13 -0400
To: "Greene, Lawrence CDR" <Lawrence.E.Greene@uscg.mil>, "LaBrec, Ronald CAPT"
<Ronald .A.LaBrec@uscg.mil>
CC: "Russell, Anthony LCDR" <Anthony.LRussell@uscg.mil>, "Carroll, Sean CDR"
<Sean.M.Carroll@uscg.mil>, "O'Neil, Christopher LCDR" <christopher.t.o'neil@uscg.mil>,
Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
"Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>, "Ormes, David"
<David.T.Ormes@uscg.mil>, "Pond, Robert" <Robert.G.Pond@uscg.mil>, "Lundgren,
Scott" <Scott.R.Lundgren@uscg.mil>
As per below we are waiting for something validated from the FRTG, sorry I can't
give you more than that.
Regards,
CDR Bob McKenna
NrC Deputy Staff Director
Message----From: Greene, Lawrence CDR

Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:01 PM
To: LaBrec t Ronald CAPT
Cc: Russell, Anthony LCOR; Carroll, Sean CDR; O'Neilt Christopher LCOR; McKenna,
Robert CDR; Martha Garcia; Mark Miller - NOAA; Brown t Baron CDR; Ormes, David;
Pond, Roberti Lundgren, Scott
CAPT t
I'm not sure what we are using now, but we have the FRTG trying to validate our
assumptions and create a tool for us to use for a daily oil budget estimate. We
have been
, for some time, to get a value of the amount of oil in the oily
water that has already been collected over the past several weeks. That might
allow us to
to an average efficiency over time. I do not know what the ICPS
are using.
Regards,
CDR Larry Greene, Ph.D.
U.S. Coast Guard
Interagency Coordinator
National Incident Command
Deepwater Horizon - MC252 Oil Spill
Ronald CAPT
To: Russell, Anthony LCOR; Carroll, Sean CDR; O'Neil, Christopher LCOR; Greene,
Lawrence CDR: McKenna, Robert CDR
10f2
9/27/20102:04 PM
RE: Oil to water mix from skimming
008842
Larry/Bob,
What are you guys using for the flow rate team and mass balance calculations, the
standard 10-15% or varying it by weax, ops efficiency? Do we know what ICPS are
using?
vr
-----Original Message----From: Russell, Anthony LCDR
To: Carroll, Sean CDR; LaBrec, Ronald CAPT; O'Neil, Christopher LCDR
Subject: Oil to water mix from skimming
Do we have a standard average we are using for % of oil to water from skimming?
I understood it to be 10-15% but Admiral Z just stated 20% and up to 50-60% on a
good day. Need to establish consistent average.
LCDR Tony Russell
Press Secretary
National Incident Commander
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response
20f2
9/27/20102:04 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status])
008843
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 201005:04:10 -0400
To: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Sharon Christopherson
<Sharon.Christopherson@noaa.gov>
CC: Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov, Judy Gray <Judy.Gray@noaa.gov>
Sharon and Mark,
Thank heavens!
I was deeply concerned that I would soon be out
of my realm of expertise. As I said in my e-mail last night, I look forward to
talking to you today.
Please let me know if there is a good time today and, after
we speak, I will inform the Coast Guard to replace my name. with yours, Sharon.
Since no actual proposals are in the e-mails, I will separately forward to you
both, the requests I have received so far as well as the forms that need to be
signed and sent back. Thank you!!
-JudyNathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov wrote:
Judy:
I just spoke with Mark Miller. He suggested that all the proposals that NOAA
!
I receives should be sent to Sharon Christopherson at NOAA. She has been hired to I
take care of all the proposals. Also Mark suggested that You, Sharon and He get '
I onto a conference call to discuss the IATAP. Nathalie
Original Message ----,
! From: Judy Gray <Judy.Gray@noaa.gov>
I Date: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:44 pm
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill
and Approval Status]]
! To: Chris Beaverson <Chris.Beaverson@noaa.gov>, Nathalie Valette-Silver
<Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>, Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>, OAR
1 HQ Head Shed <oar.hq.hs@noaa.gov>
I Hi
I ----I
i
1
i
i
!
!
I
I
!I
-------- Original Message -------Re: [Fwd: Oil Spill Activity and Approval Status]
Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:57:52 -0400
From:
Mike Allen <Mike.Allen@noaa.gov>
To:
I CC:
t 1 <Craic.Mclean@noaa.cov>r Judy Gray <Judy.Gray@noaa.gov>,
Bevels
!
<Terry.Bevels@noaa.gov>r Ken Jones <Ken.Jones@noaa.gov>, Michael Uhart
References:
<4C16487B.5040105@noaa.gov>
t f Subject:
I I
i I Date:
!I
!
II
I
!
I'I)
II
II
!i
II
f'
i'

Mike
Mark.Brown wrote:
> Good, see at 3:00
Alan.Leonardi wrote:
~~ Mark -
I agree with the proposed meeting and submit for your reading pleasure
II still
the current list of OAR proposals and activities.
Unfortunately, it is
unclear to me how we are supposed to submit these ideas to theDWH
1of2
9/27/20102:04 PM
008844
I Science
Box and seek funding and/or

- Alan
i
i
I
I
Ii:
t
!i
I
1
!I'Ii
II
Ij
III11
II
Ill.
!I
Mark.Brown wrote:
> We will be appointing a person from the formulation shop to work on >
Steve's budget and finance committee to work with Nicole LeBoeuf.
I suggest a meeting for Alan,
> John, my rep and me this afternoon at 3:00 in my office. We have
>
Deep Coral Proposal that I am aware of.
>
> -------- Original Message -------> Subject:
> Date:
Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10: 35: 50 -0400
> From:
Steven.Gallagher <Steven.Gallagher@noaa.gov> > <>
> To'
Philip M Kenul <Philip.M.Kenul@noaa.gov> > <>, Steve Murawski
> <S~eve.Murawski@noaa.gov> <>, Craig > McLean <Craig.Mclean@noaa.gov>
<>
> CC:
Mark Brown <Mark.Brown@noaa.gov> <>,
> Christopher Cartwright
<Christopher.Cartwright@noaa.gov> > <>, John Potts >
<Joh~.Potts@noaa.gov> <>, Nicole Le Boeuf
> <Nicole.Leboeuf@noaa.gov> <>,
Jennlfer > Werner <Jennifer.Werner@noaa.gov> <>
>
I
I
Ij
>>>
>
>
> I have asked Nicole LeBoeuf to develop a daily tracking report to status
I I > funding approvals for Gulf Oil Spill activities. We have a number of
> actions that fall under various stages of approval and types of >
i 1 funding. I would like to get this all under on roof and have a common >
I! reference. To populate the status report, I would ask you provide > Nicole
J! and I with a list of your most recent list of a pending or
;!
',11
o~~=rP~~l~~~= ~~~j :~~~~ve~h~~oj~~!=. inc~~d:a~~O~~s~=v~=~At~::n~:~t:t an~>~~r
! II kick
budget and finance committee meeting tomorrow.

If> Thanks.
>>>
IIi
!I
:.111
> Steve.
>
Mike Allen
OAR-LCI Sea Grant Fellow

11
.-
Ii
2 of2
>
!i!!
II
III
I
il
11
),
' I
1",1
.
\.
II
II
I!I!
I
SSMC-3 Rrn 11308, l315 East West Hwy
9/27/20102:04 PM
Fwd: RE: Next Fed Marine Meeting, Tomorrow, 8:30am-12pm
008875
Subject: Fwd: RE: Next Fed Marine Meeting. Tomorrow, 8:30am-12pm

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:09:39 -0400
To: "Greene, Lawrence CDR" <Lawrence.E.Greene@uscg.mil>. CDR Baron Brown <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>, Mark W Miller
<Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>. Nathalie Valette-Silver <NathalieValette-Silver@noaa.gov>, LCDR Jason Lehto <Jason.a.lehto@uscg.mil>, Dave Ormes
<Oavid.T.Ormes@uscg.mil>
1111 be taking a break from oil and gas tomorrow morning attending a
meeting of the interagency marine renewable energy group I sit on. Be
in after lunch. Have a good evening.
Subject: RE: Next Fed Marine Meeting, Tomorrow, 6:30am-12pm

From: "Whitson. Robert" <Robert.Whitson@ee.doe.gov>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:07:41 -0400
To: '''Benjamin. Baron-Taltre@noaa.gov''' <Benjamin. Baron-Taltre@noaa.gov>. "'maureen. bomholdt@mms.gov''' <maureen.bomholdt@mms.gov>.
"'stephen.bowler@ferc.gov''' <stephen .bowler@ferc.gov>, "'brian.cable@navy.mil'" <brian. cable@navy.mil>. '''George. H.Oeiweiler@uscg.mil'"
<George. H. Detweiler@uscg.mil>. '" Joan_Ham@nps.gov''' <Joan_Ham@nps.gov>, '" Jennifer.Hi!l@ferc.gov'" <Jennifer. Hill@ferc.gov>,
"'Maurice.Hill@mms.gov''' <Maurice. HiII@mms.gov>, "'kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov''' <Kerry. Kehoe@noaa.gov>, '''Knutson. Lingard@epamail.epa.gov'''
<Knutson. Lingard@epamail.epa.gov>, '"Emily.Lindow@noaa.gov''' <Emily.Lindow@noaa.gov>, "'RaJph.Lopez@noaa.gov''' <Ralph. Lopez@noaa.gov>.
"'jennifer.lukens@noaa.gov''' <Jennifer.Lukens@noaa.gov>, "'Kimberly.S.McLaughlin@usace.army.mil'" <Kimberly.S.McLaughlin@usace.army.mil>,
"'ellen.l.mecray@noaa.gov''' <Ellen.L.Mecray@noaa.gov>, "'Scolt.R.Medeiros@uscg.mil'" <Scott.R.Medeiros@uscg.mil>. "'Rader. Cliff@epamail.epa.gov'''
<Rader.Cliff@epamail.epa.gov>, "'Kamau. B.Sadiki@usace.army.mil'" <Kamau. B.Sadiki@usace.army.mil>, "'stefanie_stavrakas@fws.gov'''
<stefanie_stavrakas@fws.gov>, "'william.tayler@navy.mil'" <william.tayler@navy.mil>, '"Lori.Medley@mms.gov''' <Lori.Medley@mms.gov>, '''Burkhard,
Elizabeth'" <Elizabeth. Burkhard@mms.gov>, "'Gabrielle. Canonico@noaa.gov''' <Gabrielle. Canonico@noaa.gov>, "'Sharon_Kliwinski@nps.gov'''
<Sharon_Kliwinski@nps.gov>, "'ClifCMcCreedy@nps.gov''' <Cliff_McCreedy@nps.gov>
cc: "Moreno, Alejandro" <Alejandro.Moreno@ee.doe.gov>, "Battey, Hoyt" <Hoyt.Battey@ee.doe.gov>, "Geerlofs, Simon" <Simon.Geerlofs@ee.doe.gov>.
"Reed. Michael" <MichaeI.Reed@ee.doe.gov>, "Morton, Laura" <Laura.Morton@Hq.Doe.Gov>, 'Leigh Zimmermann'
<Izimmermann@oceanleadership.org>, 'Ram, Bonnie'" <BRam@energetics.com>, "'Wallace, Wendy'" <wwallace@energetics.com>, "Norton, Gary"
<Gary.Norton@ee.doe.gov>, "Naughton, Brian" <Brian.Naughton@EE.Doe.Gov>. '"rbagbey@cardinalengineeringIlC.com'"
<rbagbey@cardinalengineeringllc.com>, "Mcoluer, Megan" <Megan.Mccluer@ee.doe.gov>, "Krump, Gina" <Gina.Krump@EE.Doe.Gov>
Federal Renewable Ocean Energy Working Group,
As a final remirder. our meeting is SChedued for tomorrow beginning at 8:30 ard running lIltil noon. We will have fresh coffee brewed ard wa~ing once you arrive. You will need to give the
security persomel at lhe front desk Y0lr name at the front desk where they have a list of participants woo are planning on allerding in person. Further instruclions for getting 10 the
Aerospace building and Energetic confererce room are below.
If you camet atterd in person. the call-in runber is 301903..0700.
I have attached a final agerda along wrth all relevant materialS for tomorrow's meeting (Strnmary of MMS BAA Topics/Proposals: group charter: response letter 10 IW-GOP). I will also have
printouts. Please let me know ~ you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks and see you lomorrow.

Rob
RObert Whitson
Water Power Program Analyst
New West Tecmologies. LLC
U.S. Department of Energy
gov
From: Whitson, Robert

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2.0102:57 PM
To: 'Benjamin.Baror;-Taltre@noaa.gov'; 'maureen.bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@lferc.gov'; 'brian.cable@navy.mil'; 'George.H.Detwel'er@luscg.mil'; 'Joan_Ham@nps.gov';
'Jennlter.Hill@ferc.gov'; 'Maurice.Hill@mms.gov'; 'keny.kehoe@noaa.gov'; 'Knutson.Ungard@epamail.epa.gov'; 'robert.labelle@mms.gov'; 'Nancy_Lee@fws.gov';
'Emily.Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov'; ~enniter.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Kimberiy.s.Mclaughlin@usace.army.mil'; 'eilen.I.mea1!y@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.R.Medeiros@)uscg.mil';
'Rader.OI/f@epamall.epa.gov'; 'Kamau.B.5adiki@usace.army.mll'; 'stefanie_stavralcas@fws.gov'; 'william.tayler@\navy.mU'; 'Lor1.Medley@mms.gov'; 'Burkhard, Elizabeth';
'Gabrielle.Canonlco@noaa.gov'; 'Sharon_Kliwinsl<l@nps.gov'; 'OifCMcCreedy@nps.gov'
0:: Moreno, Alejandro; Battey, Hoyt; Geertofs, Simon; Reed, Michael; 'Leigh Zimmermann'; Brown-Saradno, Jocelyn; 'Ram, Bonnie'; Wallace, Wendy'; Norton, Gary; Naughton, Brian;
'l'bag!Jey@cardinalenglneeringllc.com'; Mo:luer, Megan
SUbject: Next Fed Marine Meeting, June 16, 8:30-12.
Importance: High
Federal Marine WOrking Group,
Thanks 10 loose woo replied to my request for dates. In effort to gellhe most atterdees. we've settled on Wednesday, June 16 from 8:3Oam-12pm in the Energelics conference rcom.
Localed next 10 DOE-headquarters. 901 D Street SW (The Aerospace Center Building). Suite 100 Washington, DC 20024. The Energetics office is located on the groLlld floor (entrance is
next 10 the elevator I:>ari<). If you plan to illtteml In person, please send me an email and I will have your name put on the guest list. From L'Enfant metro stop. exit to L'Enfant
Promenade. then immediately walk outside (you win see HUD on your right). walk down the stairs ard IIrn left. The Aerospace building entrarce will be across from you on D Street (click
here for visual).
If you are unable 10 atterd in person, here is the call-in ru-nber: 301903-0700.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise. let me know as soon as possible whether you will be atterding in person so I can have yO\.Jf name put on the guest list. Once again,
materials are attaChed for your conventence.
Thanks.
Rob
lof7
9/27/20102:05 PM
008876
Robert V\lhitson
New West Tectnologies, LLC
U. S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy EffICiency an::! Renewable Energy
gov
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:49 PM

TO: 'Benjamin.Baron-Taltre@noaa.gov'; 'maureen.bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@/'erc.gov'; 'brian.cabie@navy.mU'; 'George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil'; 'Joan_Ham@nps.gov';
'Jennifer.Hill@ferc.gov'; 'Maurice.Hill@mms.gov'; 'kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov'; 'l(nutson.Lingard@epamail.epa.gov'; 'robert.labeUe@mms.gov'; 'Nancy_Lee@fws.gov';
'Emily.Lin::!ow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov'; 1ennifer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Kimberty.S.McLaughlin@usace.arrny.mil'; 'eUen.!.meoay@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.R.Medeiros@uscg.mil';
'Rader.Oiff@epamail.epa.gov'; 'Kamau.B.Sadiki@usace.arrny.mil'; 'stefanie_stavrakas@fws.gov'; 'william.tayler@navy.mil'; 'Lori.Medley@mms.gov'; 'Burkhard, EIi:wbeth';
'Gabrielle.Canonico@noaa.gov'; 'Sharon_KJiwinski@nps.gov'; 'OifCMcCreedy@nps.gov'
Cc: Moreno, Alejandro; Battey, Hoyt; Geerlofs, Simon; Reed, Michael; 'Leigh Zimmermann'; Brown-Saracino, Jocelyn; 'Ram, Bonnie'; Wallace, Wendy'; Norton, Gary; Naughton, Brian;
'rbagbey@cardinalengineeringllc.com'
Subject: RE: Next fed Marine Meeting, June 2010
Federal Marine Working Group.
Materials are attalChed again for yo.... cOl'\V&nience.
Also. Leigh Zimmerman (NOPP) just informed me thaI the confererce room is only available on Monday (all day) an::! Tuesday afternoon. This being the case, and depen::!irg upon schedules.
we may need to hold the meeting at DOE-HO (1000 Independence Ave SW), Meetirg rooms tend to fill up fairly far in advance here. so yoU' prompt reply is appreciated.
thanks.
Rob
Robert VIh1nson
Waler PoWer Program Analyst
New West Technologies, UC
Office of Energy EffICiency an::! Renewable Energy
Win::! and Hydropower Tecmologies Program

Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2()lO 2:15 PM
To: 'Benjamin.Baron-Talt:re@noaa.gov'; 'maureen.bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@fen:.gov'; 'brian.cabie@navy.mU'; 'George.H.Detweiler@uscg,mil'; 'Joan_Ham@nps.gov';
'Jennifer.HiII@ferc.gov'; 'Maurtce.HiII@mms.gov'; 'kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov'; 'Knutson.Lingard@epamail.epa.gov'; 'robert.labelle@mms.gov'; 'Nancy_Lee@fws.gov';
Emily.Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov'; 'jennifer.lukens@noaa.gov'; Kimberty.S.McLaughlln@usaoe.army.mil'; 'ellen.l.mecray@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.R.Mecleiros@uscg.mil';
'ann.miles@ferc.gov'; 'Rader.CJiif@epamail.epa.gov'; Kamau.B.Sadiki@usaoe.arrny.mil'; 'stefanie_stavrakas@fws.gov'; 'william.tayler@navy.mil'; 'Lori.Medley@mms.gov'; 'Burkhard,
Eli:wbeth'; 'Gabtielle.CanoniCO@noaa.gov'; 'Sharon_Kliwinski@nps.gov'; 'OifCMcCreedy@nps.gov'
Cc: Moreno, Alejandro; Battey, HOyt; Geerlofs, Simon; Reed, Michael; 'leigh Zimmermam'; Brown-Saracino, Jocelyn; 'Ram, Bonnie'; Wallace, Wendy'; Norton, Gary; Naughton, Brian;
'rbagbey@cardinalengineeringllc.com'
Subject: RE: Next fed Marine Meeting, June 2010
Apologies for the delay on follow-up an::! selection of a date for our next quarterly working group meeting to be held again at NOPP headquarters.
We would like to propose holding the next meeting. which will last approximately 3-4 hours. the week of June 14 - spec~ically earlier in the week - Mon::iay through Wednesday. We would
likely hold the meellng on one of those days from BAM-Noon or 1-5PM.
What I need to know from all agency staff is what time slots do NOT work for you Please let me knew this information as soon as possible an::!,.., later than Friday, May 28. Just as a
reminder. this meetirg will last a IHUe b~ longer than nerrnal because in addrtiOn 10 getling agency updates. we need to re'liew proposal topics that were stbm~ted to the MMS BAA
solicitation and formalize the working group.
Please leI me knew
you have any qUlilstions or need me to resen::! the materials that t sent out on April 7.
Thanks in advar>::e.
Rob
Robert V\lhitson
New West TecIYlologles. LLC
OffICe of Energy Efficiency an::! Renewable Energy
logies Program

Sent: Wednesday, April 07,20103:11 PM
To: Whitson, Robert; 'Benjamin.Baron-Teltre@noaa.gov'; 'maureen,bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@fen:.gov'; 'brian.cable@navy.mll'; 'George.H.Detweller@uscg.mil';
20f7
9/27/20102:05 PM
008877
'Joan_Ham@nps.gov'; 'Jennifer.Hi1I@ferc.gov; 'Maurice.HiII@mms.gov'; 'kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov'; 'Knutson.Ungard@ep;lmail.ep;l.gov'; 'robert,labelle@mms,gov'; 'Nancv_Lee@fWs.Qov;

'Emily.Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph,Lopez@noaa,gov'; 1ennifer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Klmberly.s.McLaughlln@uSace.army.mil'; 'ellen.l.mecray@noaa.gov'; 'Scott,R.Medelros@uscg.mil';
'ann,miles@ferc,gov'; Rader.Oiff@epamail.epa.gov'; 'Kamau.B.Sadiki@usace.army.mil'; 'stefanle_stavrakas@fWs.gov'; 'willlam.tayler@navy.mil'; 'Lorl.Medley@mms.gov'; 'Burkhard,
Blzabeth'; Gabrielle.Qmonico@noaa.gov'; 'Sharon_Kllwlnski@nps.gov'; 'Cllff.,.McCreedy@nps.gov'
Cc: Moreno, Alejandro; Battey, Hoyt; Geerlofs, Simon; 'Leigh Zimmermann'; Brown-SaraClno, Jocelyn; 'Ram, Bonnie'; Wallace, Wendy'; Norton, Gary
Subject: Next Fed Marine Meeting, June 2010
Federal Marine Working Group,
I just heard back from MMS that a number Of staff will be In attendance at AWEA's amual conference. which means we need to push the meeting beck to June. I will be beck in touch with
dates.
Thanks,
Rob
Robert Whitson
New West Tedhnologles, LLC
Office Of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Wind end Hydropower Tecmologies Program
gov
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, l010 2:31 PM

To: 'Benjamln.Baron-Taltre@noaa,gov'; 'maureen,bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@ferc,gov';'brian.cable@navy.mil'; 'George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil';'Joan_Ham@nps.gov';
'Jennifer.Hill@ferc.gov'; 'Maurice.HIII@mms.gov'; kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov'; 'Knutson.Ungard@ep;lmail.ep;l.gov'; 'robert,label!e@mms.gov'; 'Nancv_Lee@fWs.gov';
'Emily.Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov'; 'jennlfer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'I(lmberfy.S.McLaughlln@usace.army.mil'; 'ellenJ.mecray@noaa,gov'; 'Scott.R.MedeiroS@uscg.mil';
'ann.mlles@ferc.gov'; 'Rader.Cliff@ep;lmail.epa.gov'; 'I(amau.B.Sadiki@usace.army.mil'; 'stefanie_stavrakas@fWs.gov'; 'william,tayler@navy.mil'; 'Lori.Medley@mms.gov'; 'Burkhard,
Elizabeth'; 'GabrieUe.canonico@noaa.gov'; 'Sharon_Kliwinskl@nps.gov'; 'Cliff_MoCreedy@nps.gov'
Cc: Moreno, Alejandro; Battey, Hoyt; Geerlofs, Simon; 'Leigh Zimmermann'; Brown-SaraClno, Jocelyn
Subject: Fed Marine Meeting, March 3, lOAM-12PM
Please find notes/mirules from our March 3 meeting. Highlighted in yellow. there are two action items: (1) review attached working group crarter, which was revised to include comments
from out IaSI meeting: and (2) suggest reviewers for lhe MMS BAA solicitation (suggestions should be emailedtoLeighZlmmerman(~J!\!!!.lIIam@>!C.....DJea~rshi~).
During out next meeting. we would like 10 rave a vote 10 pass/recognize the charter, so if you do have comments, please submit prior 10 the next meeling. Additionally. lhere is a response
letter to the IWGOP attached - Ws a draft. so please review as we will send this reply letter once the group agrees to the charter.
Finally. we need to schedule Our next meeting. We'd like to larget the dates. May 25 - Zl This may be a slightly longer meeting since we will likely review proposal topics that were stbmitted
to the MMS BAA solicitation Although nothing is sel in stone yet the meeting will probably rU"l3-4 hours. Please lei me know as soon as possible wrat works for you.
Thanks.
Rob
Robert Whitson
water Power Program Analyst
New West Technologies, LLC
U.S. Department Of Energy
Office Of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
doe.gov

Sent: Tuesday. March 02,20105:14 PM
To: 'Benjamin.Baron-Taltre@noaa.gov'; 'maureen.bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@ferc.gov'; 'brian.cable@navy.mil'; 'George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mll'; 'Joan_Ham@nps.gov';
'.Jennifer.HIII@ferc.gov'; 'Mauric:e.HiII@mms.gov'; 'kerry.kehoe@noaa,gov'; 'Knutson.Ungard@ep;lmall.epa.gov'; 'robert.labelle@mms.goV'; 'Nancy_Lee@fWs.gov';
'Emily.Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov'; 'Jennlfer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Klmberly.S.McLaughlln@usace.army.mil'; 'e1len.l.mecray@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.R.Medeiros@uscg.mil';
'ann,mites@ferc.gov'; 'Rader.Olff@ep;lmall.eP<l.gov'; 'Kamau.B.Sadikl@usace.army.mll'; 'stefanie...stavrakas@fWs.gov'; 'william.tayler@navy.mll'; 'Lorl.Medley@mms.gov'; 'Burkhard,
Elizabeth'; 'Gabrielle.canonlco@noaa.gov'; 'Sharon_lCliwinskl@nps,gov'; 'OlfCMc(:reedv@nps.gov'
Cc: Moneno, Alejandro; Battey, HOyt; Geerfofs, Simon; 'Leigh Zimmermann'; Brown-Saracino, Jocelyn; COnrad-Saydah, Ashley
Subject: RE: Next Fed MHK Meeting, March 3, 10AM-llPM
Federal MHK Team.
I've had a few requests to resand materials. so I'w attached lhem all again in one email. Please find the fOllowing dOcunents (I will print hard copies for distribution Of the f"st four
~ems).
Agenda
-Draft MHK Working Group Objectives (charter diSCussion)
-NOAA IOOS BAA Draft Topics
.IWGOP Letter
DOE - Lab/Industry Project contacts
Also. we are not plaming on providing hard copies Of these docunents. but DOE will briefly discuss
EISA Report on the enllirormental effects Of MHK tectrtologies (h\1p:llwww1 eere.enerov.QOv/wlndandhVdrolOdfsldoe eisa 633b.Odf)
- Siting Methodologies for Hydrokinetics: Navigating the Regulatory Framework (htlp:lfwwwleec9 energy.gov/windandhvdro/Odfs/siting handbook 2009.pdf)
Just In case. here are directions for thOse who will be attending the meeting who are urlfamiliar with how to get to the NQPP OffICeS, which are located at 1201 New York Avenue. NW.
Washington DC 20005 4th Floor. The building Is two blocks from the Metro' Center metro stop, at the comer of New York Ave. and 12th SI. tNV. To get to the conference room. please
30f7
9/27/2010 2:05 PM
008878
enter the elevators ioeated on the same level as lhe fOlJ'1lain and come up 10 lhe 4th fioor. Once on lhe 41h floor. there will be signs to direct you to the conference room. For those who are
unable to make it in person. a conference call runber has been set up: call.
Thanks.
ROb
Robert Whitson
New West Tecmologies. LLC
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program
Sent: Friday, February 26, 20106:42 PM
To: 'BenJamin.BanonTaltre@noaa.gov'; 'maureen.bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@rerc.gov'; 'brian.cable@navy.mil'; 'George.H.OetweUer@usog.mil'; 'Joan_Ham@nps.gov';

'Jennifer,Hill@ferc.gov'; 'Maurtre.HIII@mms.gov'; 'kerry.kehoe@noaa,gov'; 'Knutson.Ungard@epamail.epa.gov'; 'robert.labelle@mms.gov'; 'Nancy_Lee@fws.gov';
'Emily.Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov'; ~ennifer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Kimberty.S.McLaughlin@usace.anny.mil'; 'ellen.l.mecray@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.R.Medeiros@usog.mil';
'ann.miles@ferc.gov'; 'Rader.Oiff@epamail.epa.gov'; 'Kamau.B.Sadlki@usace.army.mil'; 'stefanie_stavrakas@fws.gov'; 'william.tayler@navy.mil'; 'l.ori.Medley@mms.gov'; Buri<hard,
8iZabeth
Cc: Moreno, Alejandro; Battey, Hoyt; Geertofs, Simon; 'leigh Zimmermann'
Subject: RE: Next Fed MHK Meeting, March 3, lOAM-12PM
Federal MHK Team,
Please find a finalized agenda and NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing Systems (lOOS) DRAFT broad agency announcement (BAA) attached. Please contact me
questions.
you should have any
See everyone Wednesday. Have II good weekend.

Regards.
ROb
RObert Whitson
New West Tectnologies. LLC
e.doe.gov

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 6;09 PM
To: 'Benjamln.Baron-Taltre@noaa.gov'; 'maureen.bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@ferc:.gov'; 'brian.cable@navy.mil'; 'George.H.Detweiler@usc;g.mil'; 'Joan_Ham@nps.gov';
'Jennlfer.Hill@l'erc.gov'; Maurice.Hill@mms.gov'; 'kerry.kelloe@noaa.gov'; 'Knutson.Ungard@epamall.epa.gov'; 'Andrew.Krueger@mms.gov'; 'robert.labelle@mms.gov';
'Nancy_Lee@fws.gov'; 'Emily.Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov'; ~ennifer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Kimberiy.S.McLaughlin@usace.anny.mil'; 'ellen.l.mecray@noaa.gov';
'Scott.R.Medelros@usog.mil'; 'ann.miles@ferc.gov'; 'Rader.Cliff@eparnall.epa.gov'; 'Kamau.B.Sadiki@usace.army.mil'; 'stefanle_stavrakas@fws.gov'; 'william.tayler@navy.mll'
Cc: Moreno, Alejandro; Battey, Hoyt; Geeriofs, Simon; 'leigh Zimmermann'
Subject: Next Fed MHK Meeting, March 3, lOAM-12PM
Federal MHK Team.
We are all set to have OLl' next meeting on Wednesday, March 3 from 10AM to 12PM.
Once again. the meeting will be held at the Consortiun for Ocean leadership (NOPP) offices, which are located at 1201 New YorI< Avenue. NW, Washington DC 20005 - 4th Floor. The
building is located two blocks from the Metro Center metro slop. at the comer of New York Ave. and 12th 51. r-NV. To get to the conference room, please enter the elevators located on the
same level as the folJ'1lain and come up to the 4th floor. Once on the 4th fiocr. there will be signs to direct you to the conference room.
For those whO are LI'1Ilble to make
in person. II conference call nunber has been set up:
I will follow up w~h a finalized agenda by the end of next week. I have heard from II couple agencies. but please send me agenda items by next Th!.rsday
included.
you would like for them 10 be
Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks.
Rob
Robert Whitson
New Wast Tectnologies, LLC
U.5. Department of Energy
OffICe of Energy EffICiency and Renewable Energy
Wind and'Hydropower Tectnologies Program
.
oe.gov
400
9/27/20102:05 PM
Fwd: RE: Next Fed Marine Meeting, Tomorrow, 8:30am-12prn
008879
---------------------------------------.--.--~--

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:50 AM
To: 'Benjamin.Baron-Taltre@noaa.gov'; 'l!lIlureen.bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@fen:.gov'; 'brian.cable@navy.mil'; 'Georye.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil'; 'Joan_Ham@nps.gov';
'Jennifer.HIII@fen:.gov'; 'Maurice.Hill@mms.gov'; 'kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov'; 'Knutson.Ungard@epamail.epa.gov'; 'Andrew.Krueger@mms,gov'; 'robert.labelle@mms,gov';
'Naocy-Lee@liNs.gov'; 'Emily.Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa,gov'; 'jennlfer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Kimberly.S.McLaughlin@usace,anny.mil'; 'ellen.l.meaay@noaa,gov';
'Scott,R.Medeiros@uscg,mi!'; 'ann.miles@fen:.gov'; 'Rader.Oiff@epamall.epa.gov'; 'Kamau.B.Sadiki@usac.e.army.mil'; '5tefanie_stavrakaS@liNs.gov'; 'wllliam.tayler@navy.mil'
Ce: Geerlofs, Simon; Battey, Hoyt; Moreno, Alejandro; Reed, Michael
Subject: Next Fed MHK Meeting - March 1-3?
Federal MHK working group.
U's been approximately three months since we last met and brought everyone up to speed, and DOE would like to convene another in-person meeting at NOPP headquarters.
After speaking with the NOPP folks, we have tentatively selected the first three days of the week starting March 1 as possible options. As usual, we ,\,ould like to have the meeting run for a
couple hours starting at lOAM. If enough people cannot do II morning meeting on any of those days, then we can consider an afternoon meeting.
For discussion, a draft describing the opportun~y and potential areas of collaboration for an IWG-OP Ad Hoc Federal MHK Working Group is attached for your review prior to too meeting.
Add~ionally. a letter from the Co-Chairs of the Interagency Working Group on Ocean Partnerships (IWG-OP) - Dr. Jim Kendall and Capt. Craig McLean is attached. which expresses their
support for the formation of this group.
Please respond I:>y Wednesday, February 17 with yo .... choice of day for our next weekend. We will condt.Ct the meeting in our normal rot.rdtable fashion. but
please reply with those as well before we compose an agenda
.r you have items to discuss.
Thanks,
Rob
Robert IfIIhitson
water Power Program Analyst
New West Technologies, LLC
Office of Energy EffICiency and Renewable Energy
Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program
gov

Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:00 PM
To: 'Benjamin.Baron-Taltre@noaa,gov'; 'maureen.bomholdt@mms,gov'; 'stephen.bowler@fen::,gov'; 'brian.cable@navy.mil'; 'Georye,H.Detweiler@uscg,mll'; 'Joan_Ham@nps,gov';
'Jennirer,HiII@ferc,gov'; 'Maurice.HiII@mms.gov'; 'kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov'; 'Knutson.Ungard@epamail.epa.goY'; 'Andrew.Krueger@mms,gov'; 'robert.labelle@mms.gov';
'Nancy_Lee@liNs.gov'; 'Emily,Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov'; 1ennifer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Klmberly.S.McLaughlin@usace,army.mil'; 'ellen.l.mecoay@noaa,gov';
'Scott.R,Medeiros@uscg,mil'; 'ann,miles@fen:.gov'; 'Rader,Oij'f@epamail.epa.goy'; 'Kamau.B.Sacllki@usac.e.army.mil'; 'stefanie_stavrakas@fwS.gov'; 'william.tayter@navy,mil'
Ce: Geenofs, Simon
Subject: RE: ACTIONS: Fed MHK meeting formalization & notes
Federal MHK working group members.
Happy new year! Since I only heard from a couple agencies. we kindly ask those who heve yet to respond to (1) review the attached notes and reply with any changes. and (2) review group
formalizatIon options for the group (see Appendix I) and select what option best suits you and your staff.
Please respond with your feedback by Friday, January 15, so We can move forward with the formal establishment of this group.
Thanks in advance for yo.; input.
Regards,
Rob
Robert IfIIhitson
Water Power Analyst
Sentech, Inc.
W01d and Hydropower Technologies Program
Offica: 202-586-4442
Fax: 202-586-5124
robert.wlitson@ee.doe.gov
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 2:43 PM

To: 'Benjamin.Baron-Taltre@noaa.gov'; 'maureen.bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@fen:.gov'; 'brian.cable@navy,mil'; 'Georye.H.Detweller@uscg,mll'; 'Joan..Ham@nps,gov';
'Jennifer.Hill@fen:.gov'; 'Maurice,Hill@mms,gov'; 'kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov'; 'Knutson.Ungard@epamal'.epa.gov'; 'Andrew.Krueger@mms.gov'; 'robert,labelle@mms.gov';
'Nancy_Lee@liNs.gov'; 'Emlly.Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph,LopeZ@noaa.gov'; 1ennlfer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Kimbel'ly,S.Md.aughlin@usac.e,army,mil'; 'eUen,l.mecray@noaa.gov';
'Scott.R.Medelros@uscg.mll'; 'ann.miles@fen:.gov'; 'R.ader,Oij'f@epamall.epa.gov'; 'Kamau.B.Sadiki@usace.army.mil'; 'stefanie_stavrakaS@liNs,goy'; 'william,tayter@navy.mil'
Ce: Moreno, Alejandro; Battey, Hoyt; Geenofs, Simon; Wlnkenwerder, Laurel
Subject: ACTIONS: Fed MHK meeting formalization 8< notes
Federal MHK working grOup members,
Please find notes from o.... lasl November 9 Federal MHK meeting attached. Action items are highlighted in yellow. Please pay careful attention to the action items and respond on behaff of
yo.... staff with regard to these, The most important action item !tom 0\1' past meeting was formalization ot 0 .... group. Working with NOPP. DOE has put together possible options for moving
forward with formalization of this group. You will find these suggestions in APPENDIX I ot the attached notes docurnert. Additionally. please review you- agency's respective section within the
notes and let me know ~ there are any changes you would like me to make.
Please respond to applicable action items by Wednesday, December 23.
Thanks in advance & happy horldays,
50f7
9/27/20102:05 PM
008880
Rob
Rober1 Whitson
Water Power Analyst
Senlech, Inc.
Office of Energy EffICiency and Renewable Energy
Wind and Hydropower TeclYlOlogies Program
OffiCe: 202-287-1546
Fax: 202-588-5124
rObert.wtitsor@ee.doe.gov
From: Moreno. Alejandro

Sent: Monday. October 26, 2009 7;33 AM
To: Moreno, Alejandro; 'Benjamin.Baron-Taltre@noaa.gov'; 'maureen.bomholc!t@mms.gov'; 'stephen.bowler@ferc.gov'; 'brian.cable@navy.mil'; 'George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mll';
'Joan_Ham@nps.gov'; 'Jennifer.HlIl@ferc.gov'; 'Maurice.Hill@mms.gov'; 'kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov'; 'Knutson.Ungard@epamail.epa.gov'; 'Andrew.Krueger@mms.gov';
'robert.labelle@mms.gov'; 'Nancy_Lee@fws.gov'; 'Emily.Unc!ow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov'; 'jennifer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Kimberly.S.McLaughlin@usaoe.army.mil';
'elien.l.mecray@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.R.Mec!eiros@uscg.mil'; 'ann.miles@ferc.gov'; 'Rader.CIiff@epamail.epa.gov'; 'Kamau.B.Sadlkl@usace.army.mil'; 'stefanle_stavrakas@fws.gov';
'william.tayler@navy.mil'
Cc: Whitson, Robert; Battey, Hoyt; Gilman, Patrick
Subject: RE; Next Fed MHK meetlng/formalizatllm
All.
Based on the responses we got. ~ looks like the week of November 9 is best for people. specifiCelly that Monday (the 9th). There also seemed to be support for trying the incorporation into
NOPP, and they have offered to host the meeting in their downtown DC location Wwe wanted a face-to-face.
So to everyone, please respond tetting us know whether 1) you could make a meeting on Monday Nov 9. 10-12: ar.:i 2) whether you would be able to meel in person. or onty ~a call-in
If we don't gel a quorum. we will postpone till later in the month or early December
thanks.
Alejandro
From: Moreno, Alejandro
Sent: Thursday. October 08,2009 10;19 AM

To: 'BenJamin.Baron-Taltre@noaa.gov'; 'maureen.bomholdt@mms.gov'; 'stephen,bowler@fen::,gov'; 'blian.cable@navy.mll'; 'George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil'; 'Joan_Ham@nps,gov';
'Jennifer.Hill@ferc.gov'; 'Maurice,HiII@mms.gov'; 'kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov'; Knutson.Llngard@epamail.epa.gov'; 'Andrew.Krueger@mms.gov'; 'robert.labelle@mms.gov';
'Nancy_Lee@fws.gov'; 'Emily.Undow@noaa.gov'; 'Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov'; 1ennifer.lukens@noaa.gov'; 'Kimberly.S.MCl.aughlin@usaoe.army.mil'; 'ellen.l.meaay@noaa.gov';
'Sc:ott.R.Mec!elros@uscg.mil'; 'ann.miles@fen::.gov'; 'Rac!er.aiff@epamaii.epa.gov'; 'Kamau.B.Sadiki@usaoe,army.mil'; 'stefanie_5tavrakas@fws.gov'; 'willlam.tayler@navy,mil'
Cc: Whitson, Robert; Battey, Hoyt; Gilman, Patrick
Subject: Next Fed MHK meeting/formalization
All,
. Now that we are into a new fiscal year. all have 01.1' FY 10 budget figl.l'es, and DOE has annol.l"Ced 01.1' latest roUl"ll of MHK awards. seems like a good time 10 bagin pJarring the next
Federal MHK working group meeting.
Based on our schedute here, I would tenlatively propose erther the week of October 26 (Tues-Fri) or November 9. Please fet Rob and me knoIv what days dl.l'ir>J those periods do not work
for you.
Addrtionally, a runber of you have el<pressed some interest in somewhat formalizing this group, with a more concrele mission that details our goals ar.:i relationships. We were recently given
the opportunity to do this as a part of the Interagency Working Group on Ocean Partnerships (lWG-OP). which is an adl/isory board to the Joint Subcommdee on Ocean Science ar.:i
Technology (JSOST) (which in turn will report directly to the newly formed National Ocean COt.rlCil). The OPPortunity. in effect, would be to become a slbcommKee of IWG-OP. The Pl.l'Pose
of our group. to keep each other informed of MHK developments at 01.1' respective agencies and identWy areas of shared priorities, fds in niCely wrth that of IWG-OP. and would not be
expected to change. A8 part of IWG-OP, we would also benefft from the serviCes of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). which provides both logistics ar.:i
edministrative assistance to IWG-OP (professional steff to coordinate. host, ar.:i facilrtiate meet~s) as wen as an established mechanism to develop ar.:i solic~ jointly funded projects, if any
agencies invOlved so desined.
I have spoken to some of you about this already, but would like to get everyone's feedback. particularly if anyone has signWicanl concerns (or strongly er.:iorses the idea). My perspective is
that it could help us ensure some ragularfty to the meetings, articulate ar.:i comml.l'licate oU' PllPOse both within oU' own agencies ar.:i to the outside, ar.:i potentially direct us to collaborative
activities lhat we might not otherwise have seen. And ~ it doesn't pan olA, there is no commftment to remain.
Thanks, and I looK forward to all of your Input.
Alejandro
Alejandro Moreno
Technology Lead, Water Power
Energy Efficiency ar.:i Renewable Energy
-Federal Marine Working Group AgendS_100616,docx ----------.. -------------------------.-.-----.---.-------------- --
Content-Description: Federal Marine Working Group Agenda_100616.docx

Federal Marine Working Group Agenda_100616_docx, C tent T '
applicationlvnd.open)(lTllformatsI on - ype.
6of7
9/27/20102:05 PM
008881
I
- Ren&Wable Ocean Energy Working Group Purpose and Objeclives_031710.docx-----.--
'I
. . . Renewable Ocean Energy Working Group
!ContentDescnption. Purpose and Objectives_031710.doc:x

applic:ation/vnd.openxmlformats
Renewable Ocean Energy Working Group Purpose and Objecfives_031710.docx,C te t T '
I
!
' on n ype.
officedocument.wordprocessingml.doc:ument
... _.. ___ ..._... _..____~__..... _..._.....~cont~~~~~~!.~~: .~~~...~. __..__ ._. __.._...__..._.. _._ ....J
Letlerto IWGOP.061610.docx
Content-DescriptiOn: Letter to IWGOP_061610.doc:x

[Letter to IWGOP_061610.docx Content-Type:
applic:ation/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordproc:essingml.document
.
"Summeryof BAA topics end lop-ranked proposals_061510.docx-'

__ _____
__ " _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _._ ...... ___
~_~~'
______ __
~_.
_____
__
~~_!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. ___ ' _ _ ._ _ _ _ _
___ .,",".NT_.
it Content.Descnp
. t' . Summary of BAA topics and topranked
Ion. proposals_061510.doc:x
Summary of BAA topics and top-ranked proposals_061510.dOCX! C t nt T '
i on e - ype.
Content-Encoding:
7of7
applic:ation/vnd.openxmlformatsofficedoc:ument.wordprocessingml.document
base64
9/27/20 I0 2:05 PM
008882
Federal Renewable Ocean Energy Working Group Meeting
Hosted by: Department of Energy at
901 D Street SW (The Aerospace Center Building)
Energetics, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20024
June 16, 2010
8:30AM-12PM
Call in: 301-903-0700
8:30-9:4S
Welcome and Introductions (Alejandro Moreno)

Formalization of Federal Marine Working Group (Simon Geerlofs)
o Call for final comments
o Review response letter and final charter document before sending and
presentation at next IWG-OP meeting (week of June 28)
Inclusion of Offshore Wind in Scope of Federal Marine Working Group
o Overview of DOE Offshore Wind Group (Le., mission and objectives; Gary
Norton)
o Solicitation of offshore wind agency peers to participate in Federal Marine
Working Group (Robert Whitson)
o Overview of DOE-MMS Offshore Action Plan and Corresponding Work
Subgroups (Laura Morton Smith / Gary Norton)
lEA Annex IV (Hoyt Battey)
o Provide update on Annex IV activities
o Describe International Regulators Workshop
BREAK
9:45-10
10-12
Roundtable Discussion
DOE
o
FERC
o
MHK FOA (Hoyt Battey) & Solicitation of Federal Personnel to serve as Merit
Reviewers
Project updates
NPS
o
MHK/Recreation Report - release for Public comment
MMSBAA
Review Topics and preliminary rankings (Simon Geerlofs)
o Solicit agency input on relative interest and potential for further funding of
applicable proposals
o Schedule for completing review and making awards
Recent Conferences and Events
Capitol Hill Ocean Week
EnergyOcean 2010
..
008883
Ad Hoc Federal Working Group on Renewable Ocean Energy

Interagency Working Group on Ocean Partnerships
Purpose and Topics for Consideration
Energy from ocean tides, waves, winds, currents, and thermal gradients represent a tremendous
opportunity for clean, renewable electricity production in the United States. Development of
these resources is still in a nascent stage; technologies have not been commercialized and
environmental risks are still poorly understood. Realizing the potential of renewable ocean
energy in an environmentally and SOCially responsible manner will require new information,
predictable markets, and a clear consistent policy on siting, permitting, and regulation.
Renewable ocean energy represents an emerging use of oce~I'?;~~aCe, and existing regulatory
structures are being adapted and streamlined to reduce co.~~;~tlequately assess risks, and
protectthe public i n t e r e s t . : r f 1 ! 1 '
On June 12, 2009 President Obama issued an executive memorandum calling for a clear national
"long term conservation and use" of
ocean policy and ecosystem-based framework for
ocean resources. In addition to a clear ocean policy, the President also called for a "framework
of policy coordination" to "ensure integration and !=ollaboration across jurisdictional lines in
meeting the objectives of a national policy for the oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes."
Successful deployment of renewable ocean energy technol(lgies will require such a collaborative
approach between the federal agencies withjurisdictiomljl'authority or research expertise in our
nation's oceans.
the
Throughout 2009 and intQ~2;9,10, an inforrh~Jinter~geilCV;~9rking;g{OuP for renewable ocean

energy technologiesn:asjm~t'ijUqrterly to sh~re infoiTnatiQr(and coordinate activities. When this
group last met in
2010,'parti.cipants decideklJfwould best'serve their interests to join the
Interagency WorkinifGrQup on O~e~n partnerships (rWG-OP)as an ad hoc working group. The
IWG-OP had previousive~pressed;th~ir supportforthis partnership in a December 10, 2009
letter. As an '1WG,.QP ad hoc Federal Working Group.on MHK, participants will elevate ocean
renewableenergytola more prominent roleirfth~ national marine policy discussions currently
takingplace. Participahtswill continue onMgoingi~formation sharing activities, pursue
opportunities for interagency, researcband development funding, and leverage support through
the National
Oceanographic:Pimnershlp'Program
(NOPP).
, : :-:< ':- ,
.
,: '-.
.> ';:,' i
Mah:fI
~ :-:~
\.~~ ~>,
A key goal of;tk!~group will b~;~~ identify information needs and jointly support research
necessary to fadlita1~the reg~I~'ory process for siting and deploying renewable ocean energy
technologies. Additlon~t :8oal~:and objectives for the ad hoc working group will be defined by
the members and couicl\{rlch..ide:
Develop policies and guidance for coordinated, responsible, and efficient review of
permits, licenses and leases.
Coordinate data sharing between agencies and outreach to stakeholders.
Provide information on renewable ocean energy to the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean
Science and Technology (JSOST) and other ocean science and management policy
bodies.
Identify barriers to the efficient and environmentally responsible deployment of
renewable ocean energy technologies and formulate solutions to overcome these.
008884
June 16,2010
Dr. Jim Kendall
Capt. Craig McLean
Co-Chairs, IWG-OP
National Oceanographic Partnership Program
1201 New York Ave., 4th Floor
Dr. Kendall and Capt. McLean:
Thank you for your December 31 S\ 2009 letter expressing your support for the Federal
Renewable Ocean Energy Working Group. We also appreciate the assistance that NOPP
staff and the IWG-OP have generously provided to our group by arranging meeting
facilities, guidance, and support for interagency funding opportunities. These activities
have been critical to our success over the past year and we look forward to continued
collaboration in the future.
At our March 2010 meeting, Working Group participants discussed options for furthering
our connection to the IWG-OP and NOPP and agreed that formalizing our relationship as
an ad hoc group would be beneficial to advancing science and policy in support of
environmentally responsible development of ocean renewable energy resources. The
group concurs that a role similar to that described for the Biodiversity Ad Hoc Group
would provide the opportunity to interface with the IWG-OP, enhance opportunities for
interagency funding for research, contribute to information and data sharing efforts, and
help elevate the importance of renewable ocean energy issues within the federal
community.
We look forward to working closely with NOPP and the IWG-OP as we move forward
into a new era of ocean policy under the National Ocean Council. Interagency
coordination is a key emphasis of this new policy; working together we can develop the
relationships, science, and policies necessary for a renewable ocean energy agenda that
helps achieve the Administration's goals for environmentally sustainable, carbon-free
electrical power.
Sincerely,
Alejandro Moreno,
On behalf of the Federal Renewable Ocean Energy Working Group
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program
008885
Summary ofMMSIDOEINOAA Broad Agency Announcement

For Environmental Monitoring and Protocols to Support
Renewable Ocean Energy

CONFIDENTIAL FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Topic 1.
Characterization & Potential Impacts of Noise Producing Construction &
Operation Activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Top Candidate: Clark CU2 (1.67) (Other scores: 2.17, 2.33, 3.42)
Summary (MM8) The focus of this proposal is to establish and demonstrate a viable process to
determine the influences of anthropogenic noises produced by the construction and operation
phases of offshore alternative energy projects on representative marine species that utilize the
habitat surrounding a renewable energy site. The investigations are designed to demonstrate
objective and quantifiable mechanisms and establish a framework to determine the potential
effects that an OAE development might have on the behavior and ecology of resident or
migratory species of marine vertebrates, with a focus on three whale species and two fish
species. The empirically-based framework will be established and tested using an extensive set
of existing recordings collected from the U.S. east coast; augmented with new, site-specific field
recordings; analyzed with an extensive set of existing, analytical tools; and evaluated using
sound exposure metrics grounded in an ecological and acoustic habitat framework. Passive
acoustic recordings and acoustic analyses technologies developed by the Bioacoustics Research
Program (BRP) at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology in collaboration with Marine Acoustics, Inc.
(MAl) will be used.
Topic 2.
Protocols for Baseline Studies and Monitoring for Ocean Renewable Energy
This panel will occur in July. There are a couple of funding options to consider here. One is that
we hold a little money aside in the hopes that there will be a suitable candidate when we see the
reviews. The other is to spend all our FY 10 money on the other topics and set any good
candidate in this topic aside for ftmding in FY 11. I welcome your tIhoughts on these or other
options I B1ight have overlookedare welcome.
Topic 3.
Physical Oceanography Field Study to Assess Potential Environmental
Impacts of Prospective Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy-Generating Devices
Top Candidate - Thomson UW (1.60) (Other Scores: 1.75,2.50,3.50,3.70)
Summary - The Snohomish County PUD and the Navy each plan to install tidal turbines in
Admiralty Inlet in the next 2-3 years. Thompson et al. propose to build on ongoing efforts to
quantify and model the tidal flow at each of these test sites. In collaboration with a wide
spectrum of institutions and agencies, they will (1) monitor flow at the test sites, (2) measure
flow both across and along the axis of the inlet using ship-based instrumentation, (3) use NOAA
protocols to predict currents (and thereby power available for extraction), (4) calibrate and apply
a numerical model of tidal flow in the Inlet. If turbines are installed on schedule, some of these
measurements will allow for before-and-after comparisons.
Second Ranked Proposal - Hamilton SAIC 0.70)
Summary (M}'48) - Pacific Gas & Electric has federal permits for its Humboldt WaveConnect
Project in Humboldt County, California. As part of this project, PG&E provides the location,
008886
pennitting, and infrastructure for companies to test their MHK devices, and installation of
devices is expected in 2012 or 2013. Hamilton et aL proposed to monitor the wave and current
characteristics both upstream and downstream before installation of devices at this site.
Monitoring will be conducted in two 3-month stints, one in April-July, the other in DecemberMarch. These measurements build on previous STRATAFORM measurements at one location
from 1996-99. Two transects of ADCPs and thennistor strings will bracket the test site in the
longshore. In conjunction with these cross-shore measurements, as glider study will be
conducted to give a 3-D picture of the conductivity, density, optical backscatter, and chlorophyll
characteristics of the water column at the test site. Other than the use of existing models to
interpret data, there is no modeling effort proposed.
Note: The third ranked proposal was not in a geographic area of interest.
Fourth Ranked Proposal - Shay UM (1.80)
Summary (MMS) - Shay et aL propose to monitor & model the Florida Current both upstream
and downstream of the Miami Terrace site ofMHK testing. Emphasis is on measuring the
temporal and spatial variation in the Current over a wide range of spatial scales, although effort
is somewhat skewed towards measurements at large spatial scales. The proposed research builds
on current measuring capabilities maintained by Florida Atlantic University, and will make use
of NOAA's ability to measure the Current downstream of the test site. The modeling effort
extends and tests an existing model (FKEYS-HYCOM).
Topic 4.
Evaluation of Environmental Monitoring Technologies for Offshore
Renewable Energy
This panel occurs on Monday afternoon. June 21.
Topic 5.
Practices
Sub-Seabed Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Best Management
Top Candidate - Smyth UT (1.17) (Other Ranks: 1.67, 3.00, 3.00)

Summary (MMS) - Scientists and engineers at the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) who
focus on carbon sequestration research comprise the Gulf Coast Carbon Center (GCCC). This
proposal includes nine major sections. Section 2.0, Statement of Work, is divided into three
sections: (1) project scope, (2) project objective, and (3) technical approach. Highlights of
Section 2.0 includes description of 11 subtopics that will be included in each of three Tasks
according to the schedule presented in Sec~ion 3.0: Task 1.0 Complete a worldwide literature and
data availability survey [federal fiscal year 2011 (FYI 1) and FY12], Task 2.0 Develop Best
Management Practices (FYll and FYI2), Task 3.0 Analysis of Data Gaps and Need for Further
Work (FY12 and FY13). Details of project deliverables are provided in sections 3.0 and 5.0. The
management approach given in Section 6.0 describes that primary project management will be
conducted by the primary contractor, BEG. Management will be conducted by Rebecca C.
Smyth, with two alternates identified if necessary and upon approval of MMS. References for
many of the technical details given in Section 2.0 are provided in Section 7.0. The BEG and
subcontractors have much C02 sequestration project experience. Summaries of current and
completed projects are provided in Section 8.0. Section 9.0 contains Curricula Vitae for BEG
key personnel and Curricula Vitae and Commitment Letters from subcontractors. the nation's
needs for energy development. It will encompass the "cradle-to-grave approach" that the MMS
008887
utilizes for its regulatory framework.
Topic 6.
Renewable Energy Visual Evaluations
Top Candidate - Cothren UAR (2.75) (Other Ranks: 1.00,2.63,3.75,3.88,4.00)

Summary (MMS) - CASTIEVS will develop a visual impact evaluation system (integrated with
ArcGIS) that allows user to designate parameters. System outputs will be maps, tabular reports
and high-quality rendered images, including 3-D. System could also be used for zone of visual
influence (ZVI) findings and evaluation of applicant photomontages. Products are 1)design brief,
2)technical spec document, 3)integrated GIS/visualization app with source code, 4)user's guide,
5)2.5 day workshop for MMS. Proposes one demonstration/pilot site with criteria for ultimate
site selection.
Note: The top ranked proposal addresses only a single coastline when both Atlantic and Pacific
were required and includes many elements that are not needed.
Note: The second ranked proposal includes data rights restrictions on the products that decrease
their utility and public availability.
Topic 7.
Renewable Energy Capacity Inventory in Coastal Alaska
Only one proposal was received in this topic. It addresses only state waters and while it scored
well in isolation (1.63), it was not suitable to the needs described in the BAA.
Topic 8.
Planning
Ocean Renewable Energy Siting in the Context of Coastal and Marine Spatial
Top Ranked Proposal- Halpin-DUKE (1.13) (Other Ranks: 2.00,2.15,2.13,2.25,2.38,2.38,

2.88,2.88,3.13,4.13)
Summary - The project will build a spatial decision support system (SDSS) that allows users to
evaluate various management alternatives and frameworks for wind energy siting off the coast of
North Carolina. The SDSS will improve existing efforts to identify suitable areas for wind
development by integrating additional human use and ecological data necessary for
comprehensive siting decisions. The SDSS will be built specifically to be portable to other
regions and CMSP efforts. Geographic scope of the project is North Carolina offshore waters.
The project term is 2 years.
Second Ranked Proposal - McDonald-MaNU (1.50)
Summary - The proposal is to develop a CMSP work plan for use by states in the mid-Atlantic
region and an integrated CMSP process and associated decision support tools that can be used
for offshore renewable energy siting. The proposal will also pursue a pilot project to groundtruth
the decision support tools. Geographic scope is the Mid-Atlantic region. Project term is 18
months.
Third Ranked Proposal (tie) - Halsey-PRMTX (1.63)
Summary - Proposes to develop a data analysis and synthesis tool using Bayesian methods to
describe cumulative impacts and support multi-criteria decision making.
Third Ranked Proposal (tie) - Michel-RPI (1.63)
008888
Summary - Research Planning Inc. will lead an effort,to compile a comprehensive dataset of
physical, ecosystem, and human activities in the North Carolina and South Carolina coastal and
marine areas. Decision support tools will then be developed that use this integrated dataset to
assist decision making for renewable energy projects. The capabilities of these DSTs will be
evaluated in two locations to site potential wind projects; DSTs will be improved based on
stakeholder evaluation.
008893
High
1078992.4
008901
RE: FRTG INTERIM OIL BUDGET TO ACCOMPANY NEW FLO ...
u.s. Scientific Team Draws on New Data, Multiple Scientific

Methodologies to Reach Updated Estimate of
Oil Flows from BP's Well
Washington, DC - Based on updated information and scientific assessments, Secretary of Energy
Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and Chair of the National Incident Command's
Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) Dr. Marcia McNutt (Director of the U.S. Geological Survey)
today announced an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well.
Secretary Chu, Secretary Salazar, and Dr. McNutt convened a group of federal and independent
scientists on Monday to discuss new analyses and data points obtained over the weekend to produce
updated flow rate estimates. Working together, U.S. government and independent scientists estimate
that the most likely flow rate of oil today is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day". The improved
estimate is based on more and better data that is now available and that helps increase the scientific
confidence in the accuracy of the estimate.
At the direction ofthe federal government, BP is implementing multiple strategies to significantly
expand the leak containment capabilities at the sea floor even beyond the upper level oftoday's
improved estimate. The Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) cap that is currently in place can
capture up to 18,000 barrels of oil per day. At the direction of the federal government, BP is
deploying today a second containment option, called the Q4000, which could expand total leak
containment capacity to 20,000-28,000 barrels per day. Overall, the leak containment strategy that
BP was required to develop projects containment capacity expanding to 40,000-53,000 barrels per day
by the end of June and 60,000-80,000 barrels per day by mid-July.
"This estimate brings together several scientific methodologies and the latest information from the sea
floor, and represents a significant step forward in our effort to put a number on the oil that is escaping
from BP's well," said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "As we continue to collect additional data and
refme these estimates, it is important to realize that the numbers can change. In particular, the upper
number is less certain - which is exactly why we have been planning for the worst case scenario at
every stage and why we are continuing to focus on responding to the upper end of the estimate, plus
additional contingencies."
Today's improved flow rate estimate brings together the work of several scientific teams and is based
on a combination of analyses of high resolution videos taken by ROVs, acoustic technologies, and
measurements of oil collected by the oil production ship together with pressure measurements inside
the top hat. Over the weekend, at the insistence of Secretary Chu and the science team, pressure
meters were added to the top hat to assist with these estimates.
The scientists stressed the need for continued and refmed pressure measurement, but emphasized that
today's improved estimates have a greater degree of confidence than estimates that were possible prior
to the riser cut. There are several reasons for this, including:
1)
30f4
More and different kinds of data is available now: The improved estimates are informed by
newly available, detailed pressure measurements from within the Top Hat taken over the past
24 hours. In addition, scientists could draw on more than a week of data about the amount of
9/27/20102:05 PM
008902
RE: FRTG INTERIM OIL BUDGET TO ACCOIviPANY NEW FLO...
oil being collected through the top hat.

2)
A single flow is easier to estimate: Prior to the' riser cut, oil was flowing both from the end of
the riser and from several different holes in the riser kink. This made estimates - particularly
based on two dimensional video alone - more difficult.
"We need to have accurate and scientifically grounded oil flow rate information both for the purposes
of the response and recovery and for the fmal investigation of the failure of the blowout preventer and
the resulting spill," said Interior Secretary Salazar. "This estimate, which we will continue to refme as
the scientific teams get new data and conduct new analyses, is the most comprehensive estimate so far
of how much oil is flowing one mile below the ocean's surface."
"Each of the methodologies that the scientific teams is using has its advantages and shortcomings,
which is why it is so important that the scientific teams have taken several approaches to solving this
problem," said Dr. McNutt. "Under the leadership of Admiral Allen, we will continue to revise and
refme the flow rate estimate as our scientific teams get new data and conduct additional analyses."
The FRTG was assembled at the direction of National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen, and
is led by United States Geological Survey Director Dr. Marcia McNutt. The FRTG, and a scientific
team led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, continue to analyze new data and use several scientific
methodologies to develop updated estimates of how much oil is flowing from BP's leaking oil well in
the Gulf of Mexico.
.
###

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
National Center, MS 301
Reston, VA 20192
http://biology. usgs.gov
40f4
9/27/20102:05 PM
008903
Re: Mass Balance Discussion
Subject: Re: Mass Balance Discussion

From: Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 201008:18:34 -0400
To: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Stephen
Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
CC: Mark Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
Mark, Call would be great, I've asked Vic Labson who headed the mass balance team
and Mark Sogge r who is Marcia's deputy to join us. Kindly pass on the call in
info. Thanks -------------------------Martha N. Garcia, Chief of Staff
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.qov
fax
Original Message ----From: Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: 06/16/2010 09:03 PM AST
To; Martha Garcia; Bill Lehr
Subject: Mass Balance Discussion
Stephen Lehmann
Marsha,
Steve Lehmann, our lead SSC with ADM Watson, has been working on the mass
balance/oil budget issue and we think that a call between Area Command and members
of the mass balance team would be a good idea so that everyone is using the same
numbers ..Is it possible to arrange a call tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon at 2:00
EDT to discuss the assumptions and estimates being used?
Mark
10ft
9/27/20102:05 PM
008904

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 201008:18:34 -0400
To: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Stephen
Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
CC: Mark Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
Mark, Call would be
, I've asked Vic Labson who headed 'the mass balance team
and Mark Sogge, who is Marcia's deputy to join us. Kindly pass on the call in
info. Thanks -------------------------Martha N. Garcia, Chief of Staff
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov
703 648-6960
703 648-4039 fax
Sent from my
Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----From: "Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: 06/16/2010 09:03 PM AST
To: Martha Garcia; Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>; Stephen Lehmann
Marsha,
Steve Lehmann, our lead SSC with ADM Watson, has been working on the mass
balance/oil budget issue and we think that a call between Area Command and members
of the mass balance team would be a good idea so that everyone is using the same
numbers. Is it possible to arrange a call tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon at 2:00
EDT to discuss the assumptions and estimates being used?
Mark
1 of 1
9/27/20102:05 PM
008905

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 201009:03:44 -0400
CC: Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Stephen Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
Email addresses are vlabson.usgs.gov and mark sogge@usgs.gov
Martha N. Garcia t Chief of Staff
National Center t MS 301
Reston, VA 20192
http://biology.usgs.gov
usgs.gov
-----Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov> wrote: .----To: mgarcia@usgs.gov, Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Stephen Lehmann
From: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: 06/16/2010 09:03PM
Marsha,
Steve Lehmann, our lead SSC with ADM Watson, has been working on the
mass balance/oil budget issue and we think that a call between Area
Command and members of the mass balance team would be a good idea so
that everyone is using the same numbers. Is it possible to arrange a
call tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon at 2:00 EDT to discuss the
assumptions and estimates being used?
Mark
lofl
9/27f2010 2:05 PM
008906

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 201009:03:44 -0400
CC: Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Stephen Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
Email addresses are vlabson.usgs.gov and mark sogge@usgs.gov
Reston, VA 20192
fax
mgarcia@usgs.gov
-----Mark Miller <IVlark.W.rvliller@noaa.gov> wrote: ----To: mgarcia@usgs.gov, Bill Lehr-<Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Stephen Lehmann
From: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: 06/16/2010 09:03PM
Marsha,
Steve Lehmann, our lead SSC with ADM Watson, has been working on the
Mark
1 of 1
9/2712010 2:05 PM
Mass Balancel Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDTII :00 CDTII 1:00 PDT
008907
Subject: Mass Balancel Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/1 :00 CDT/11 :00 PDT
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 201009:12:16 -0400
To: Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Martha
N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>,
vlabson@usgs.gov, Amy McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Nathalie Valette-Silver
<Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>
Here is the call in info for the discussion -
Possible Agenda
1. Area Command Overview

2. USGS brief
3. USCG/NOAA (McElroy and Lehr) overview
Goal is agreement on component input numbers to calculation or at least agreement
on methodology .
Mark
1 of I
9/27/20102:05 PM
008912

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:05:38 -0400
CC: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Stephen Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>,
Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
Apologies, bit Mark Sogge and I have been asked to participate on a call with Dr McNutt and RDML Neffenger.
Look forward to talking to Mark and Vic for an update of the call
Reston, VA 20192
fax
rngarcia@usgs.gov
From:
fIt1ark Miler <Mark.WMller@noaa.gov>
To:
Date:
mgarcia@usgs.gov. Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Stephen Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>

06/16/201009:03 PM
Subject:
fIt1ass Balance Discussion
Marsha,
Steve Lehmann, our lead sse with ADM Watson, has been working on the
Mark
I of I
9/27/20102:05 PM
008913

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:05:38 -0400
CC: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Stephen Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>,
Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
Apologies, bit Mark Sogge and I have been asked to participate on a call with Dr McNutt and RDML Neffenger.
Look forward to talking to Mark and Vic for an update of the call
Reston, VA 20192
From:
mgarcia@usgs.gov
To:
rtark Miller <rtark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

mgarcia@usgs.gov, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Stephen Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
Date:
Subject:
06116/201009:03 PM
Mass Balance Discussion
Marsha,
Steve Lehmann, our lead sse with ADM Watson, has been working on the
Mark
lof]
9/27/20102:05 PM
Re: NIC NOAA Daily Report 6117/2010
008921
Subject: Re: NIC NOAA Daily Report 6/17/2010

From: "Michelle.A.Johnston" <Michelle.A.Johnston@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:44:42 -0400
WOW! That is great Mark. Glad the ERMA team keeps pushing things forward. I got to
spend the day with Jason Rolfe at NOAA's restoration day at the Oxford lab on
Tuesday. Also got to meet Brian Julius and see Jason again today. I was hoping to
come back down to the NIC for a day or two this week or next, but I have been told
no from ONMS. I tried. Once Sam gets back we need to meet you downtown for dinner!
up the good work,
Michelle
Michelle A. Johnston, Ph.D.
John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellow
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th floor
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
11. ERMA keep moving up the food chain. ADM Allen received for a short demo and
! then posed specific questions on booming and response assets near Pensacola and
Perdido Key, FL. He was very pleased wIth the data being presented. He also
1 mentioned that NGO was providing three touch tables for use in the rcps (NOLA,
t Houma, and Mobile) .
! 2.
Held a discussion with USGS, NOAA SSC, and NOAA technical staff of
budget calculation to ensure consistency with
input from ADM Allen as to factors to be
! considered.
! coordination of mass balance/oil

! the final calculations. Included
!
1 3. Had discussion with NOAA oil trajectory modelers to discuss potential
I misinterpretation
I predictions.
of uncertainty lines associated with the daily trajectory

Looked at options fro displaying differently in Geoplatform.gov and
i ERMA.
!;
1 of 1
9/27/20102:05 PM
Re: NIC NOAA Daily Report 6117/2010
008922
Subject: Re: NIC NOAA Daily Report 6/17/2010

From: Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Lambert@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:01:44 -0400
To: IIMark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Thanks, Mark ... can we get tickle-me-ERMA stickers for the touch tables?
On 6/17/2010 3:13 PM, Mark.W.Miller wrote:
ERMA keep moving up the food chain. ADM Allen received for a short demo and
[ then pos~d specific questions on booming and response assets near Pensacola and
! Perdido Key, FL. He was very pleased with the data being presented. He also
~ mentioned that NGO was providing three touch tables for use in the reps (NOLA,
! Houma I and Mobile) .
11.
t
12. Held a discussion with USGS, NOAA sse, and NOAA technical staff of
: coordination of mass balance/oil budget calculation to ensure consistency with
'I: the
final calculations. Included input from ADM Allen as to factors to be
. considered.
!
! 3. Had discussion with NOAA oil
ectory modelers to discuss potential

of uncertainty lines associated with the daily traj
! predictions. Looked at options fro displaying differently in Geoplatform.gov and
! misinterpretation
,~ ERMA.
!
1 of 1
9/27/20102:05 PM
FW: Good GOM dispersant studies!
008923
Subject: FW: Good GOM dispersant studies!

Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:24:38 -0400
To: Mark Miller - NOAA <MarkW.Miller@noaa.gov>, "Knoy, Jim" <knoy.jim@epa.gov>
FYI
-----Original Message----From: Miller, Eric CDR
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 6:46 PM
To: McElroy, Amy LT
Subject: Good GOM dispersant studies!
Amy,
I stumbled upon these two studies tonight (and promptly made a notebook). If you're still looking at
Dispersant and oil budget issues, I think you'll find both of these extremely useful. One is a short
paper while the 2nd is a longer research paper - both published around 2000.
Feel free to pick up my notebook if you find useful "
rl
Eric J. Miller, Commander, USCG
Commandant (CG-5333)
Coordination and Outreach Division
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 2nd St SW STOP 7363
Dispersant study for

't'
,
GOM_long
Cont ent -Descnp Jon, version_2000_SLRoss
Dispersant study for GOM_long version_2000_SLRoss Env Res.pdf
EnvRes.pdf
Content-Type:
application/pdf
Dispersant study for GOM_short ver_200 1_SLRoss Env Res.pdf .-... __ .._ ..
I
C
Dispersant study for GOM_short ver_2001_SLRoss Env Res.pdf
Dispersant study for

GOM short
t D
. t'
on en - escrlp Jon: ver 2001 SLRoss Env
Res.pdf t
Content-Type:
Content-Encoding:
application/pdf
base64
-------------------
1 of 1
9/27/20102:05 PM
008924
Technology Assessment of the Use of Dispersants

on Spills from Drilling and Production Facilities
in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf
by
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd.
200-717 Belfast Rd.
Ottawa, ON
KIGOZ4
for
Minerals Management Service

Engineering and Research Branch
381 Elden Street
Herndon, VA
20170-4817
Decem ber 2000
008925
Summary
Technology Assessment of the Use of Dispersants on Spills from Drilling and

Production Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf
Objective
The objective of the research project was to conduct a comprehensive assessment ofthe operational
and environmental factors associated with the use of chemical dispersants to treat oil spills from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities that are regulated by the V.S. Minerals Management
Service (MMS). The scope of the study is restricted to waters of the V.S. Gulf of Mexico.
Review of Basics
The study begins with a detailed review of the basics of (a) marine oil spill behavior, (b) chemical
dispersants, (c) factors that can affect dispersant effectiveness, and (d) field trials and actual spills
where dispersants were used successfully. The review indicates that dispersant treatment will likely
be effective if: (l) the response effort takes place quickly while the spilled oil is unemulsified,
relatively thick, and low in viscosity; (2) the thick portions ofthe spill are targeted and treated with
state-of-the art chemicals until properly dosed; and (3) sea states are light-to-medium or greater. If
the spilled oil becomes highly viscous through the process of water-in-oil emulsification, dispersant
use will not be effective.
Likely Dispersibility of GOMR Oils

An analysis was performed to determine the general applicability of dispersants on spills involving
oils that are produced in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region (GOMR). There are many distinct oils to
consider because there are thousands of wells in operation. A publicly available MMS database,
which provides average API oil gravities for all plays in the GOMR, shows that the vast majority of
GOMR oils are relatively light (average API gravity is about 33 = 0.86 specific gravity). This is
generally favorable, but more information is required to evaluate an oil's likely chemical
dispersibility, especially data on the tendency of the oil to emulsify as a function of weathering
(evaporation). Although such information is generally not available, it is for 28 specific GOMR oils
that were thoroughly analyzed and modeled in previous projects funded by MMS. The oils are listed
in Table S-I, ranked according to emulsion formation tendency. Batch spills of size 1000 barrels and
10,000 barrels are used as examples to calculate windows of opportunity for using dispersant.
If it can be assumed that these 28 oils are representative ofthe Gulf oils in general, the following
conclusions can be made regarding the dispersibility ofGOMR oils with respect to batch spills in the
size range shown.
Summary - Page 1 of 10
Crude Oil Name
Emulsion
Formation
Tendency'
Size of "Window
of Opportunity"
for Successful
Dispersant Use
Hours for Oil to reach Specified Viscosity in 6 mls (12 kt) winds
008926
amount of oil evaporation that must occur to start the emulsification process.
008927
Fourteen percent ofGOMR-OCS oils (four of the 28 oils in Table S-I) are highly emulsifiable and
will have a very narrow "window of opportunity" for treatment with chemical dispersants. These are
called Hi-E oils in this study. They are defined as oils that will start to emulsify either immediately
or after up to 10% of the spill has evaporated. The next category is for Av-E oils (29% of total). For
these, there is a relatively narrow time-window for effective dispersant response, but still
significantly more time available than the Hi-E oils. For Low-E oils (32% of total) the ''window of
opportunity" for effective dispersant use becomes wide, and one has several days to respond to the
spill. Finally, No-E oils (25% of total) are ideal dispersant-use candidates because they do not
emulsify regardless of the extent of evaporation. This class of oils would also include diesel oils.
In summary, the opportunity for using dispersants effectively on the example oils shown in the table
is very good. Only the Hi-E oils, representing 14% of the total, present problems due to their
tendency to emulsify rapidly, thus quickly closing the window ofopportunity for effective dispersant
use. The remaining 86% offer a reasonable chance of being good targets for a dispersant response
program. Indeed, both Low-E oils and No-E oils, representing 57% of all spill possibilities, are
excellent candidates for responding with dispersants. There is generally much time available for
dispersing such spills before the oils become too viscous, at least when considering batch spills in
the spill size range of 1000 bbl to 10,000 bbJ.
For other spills the dispersant-use time window will vary as a function of spill type (e.g., blowout vs.
batch spill), spill size and environmental conditions. To analyze this variation, a detailed modeling
exercise was initiated.
Spill Scenario Modeling

Representatives of each category in Table S-1 were selected for modeling purposes (these are the
rows marked by gray fill) and a number of spill scenarios were developed to reflect the range of spill
possibilities associated with OCS installations. These scenarios are shown in Table S-2. The
following describes general features of the spills that will affect dispersant use and effectiveness.
Batch Spills: Scenarios 1 through 3. Batch spills involving diesel oil and No-E oils (scenarios la, 1b
and 2a) have large windows of opportunity for the use of dispersants because ofthe low tendency of
these oils to form emulsions. The batch spilJ involving Av-E oil (scenario 2b) is a good candidate for
dispersant use because it is relatively persistent (> 30 days)--and, thus, a threat to even distant
shorelines-and yet it does not emulsify quickly (96 hours), allowing ample time to implement a
spraying operation. Such time is not available in scenarios 2c and 3 where emulsion viscosities for
the batch spills involving Hi-E oil will exceed chemically dispersible levels within only 10 to 15
hours.
Above-Sea Blowouts: Scenarios 4 and 5. The primary difference between the above sea blowout
results and the batch spills of similar oil and total spill volume is the initial small thickness and
widths of the oil slicks and the long-term release characteristics ofthe blowouts. An above-sea, lowflow blowout involving Lo-E oil (scenario 4a) will disperse quickly on its own (within 15 hours).
The same blowout involving an Av-E oil (4b) will emulsify relatively rapidly (10 to 15 hours), as it
did in the batch spills, but because this spill is continuous and lasts over a period offour days it is
possible to mount a spraying operation to treat the freshly released oil during daylight hours:
008928
Table 8-2 GOMR Spill Scenarios

Spill Description
Batch Spill
(la) 2000 bbl and

(I b) 20,000 bbl
Batch Spill
20,000 bbl
(2a) Lo-E Oil

(2b) Av-E Oil
(2c) Hi-E Oil
.:>
Batch Spill
]00,000 bbl
(3) Hi-E Oil
Surface Blowout,
average rate,
short duration
20,000 bbl =
5000 BOPDbx
4 days
(4a) Lo-E Oil

(4b) Av-E Oil
Surface Blowout,
high flow rate
1,400,000 bbl =
100,000 BOPD x
14 days
(Sa) Hi-E Oil

(5b) Av-E Oil
Subsurface
Blowout, shallow
water, low flow
20,000 bbl =
5000 BOPD x
4 days
Av-E Oil
(6a) 35 m deep
(6b) 50 m deep
(6c) 150 m
7'
Subsurface
Blowout, shallow
water, high flow
100,000 bbl =
7200 BOPDx
14 days
Av-E Oil
(7a) 35 m deep
(7b) 50 m deep
(7c) 150 m
..,
Spill Volume
9,000,000 bbl =
Subsurface
Blowout,
deep
100,000 BOPD x
8
water, high flow
90 days
a. Model otis are marked In Table S-1
b.
Model Oil a
(la) Diesel
(lb) No-E Oil
(8a) HI-E Oil

(8b) Av-E Oil
Comments
Demonstrates the large dispersantuse time window for diesel spills and
spills of crude oils that do not
emulsifY.
Could be tank rupture on platform or
"dead crude" pipeline spill. Shows
the effect of oil type on time
window, as compared to Spil1#l.
Could be -yvorst-case FPSO spill or
shuttle tanker spill.
Demonstrates the fast initial
evaporation of oil in air, and its
effect on time window.
Extremely large spill that will
challenge all countermeasures
methods for Hi-E oils and even A vOils and lighter.
Shows the differences between
same-sized batch spill (SpilJ#2) and
surface blowout (Spill#4). Could
also represent Alive crudet pipeline
spill.
Worst-case, but more manageable
than surface blowout (Spill#5)
because no fast initial evaporation in
air.
Represents worst-case blowout in
deep water, and 90 days to drill
relief well
BOPD = barrels of oil per day
008929
The above-surface, high-flow blowout involving Hi-E oil (scenario Sa) emulsifies very quickly and
provides a window of opportunity for dispersant application of only five hours. Much of the oil that
is released overnight during this blowout will not be amenable to effective dispersant treatment the
next day. The fresh oil released will be relatively thick (2.5 to 4 mm) and narrow 100m) making
this spill a good candidate for vessel-based dispersant application as long as the dispersant is applied
very close to the source.
Scenario 5b has the same high flow rate as Sa, but the lighter oil (A v-E) results in a larger window of
opportunity for dispersant application (up to 36 hours). This scenario is also a good candidate for
dispersant use because the slicks will survive a long time if left untreated (> 30 days), but dispersants
should be effective on all of the oil, even that discharged over night.
Subsea Blowouts: Scenarios 6 and 7. In these scenarios the a, band c designations refer to the
different release depths of 35, 50 and 150 m, respectively. As the release point gets deeper the
surface slick becomes wider (increasing from approximately 300 m to 750 m) and thinner
(decreasing from about 0.15 mm to 0.05 mm) . The higher flow rates of scenario 7 increase the slick
widths and thicknesses somewhat, but not radically. The window of opportunity for dispersant
application in these scenarios is between 4 to 7 hours. Because these spills are all continuous
releases, the fresh oil emanating from the blowout site during the day will be treatable as long as it
can be dosed within about 6 hours of its release. However, much of the oil released overnight wiH
not be chemically dispersible the following morning. The dispersant application system used to
apply the dispersant will have to be designed to properly dose the relatively thin slicks that result
from these blowouts.
Analysis of Logistics and Other Operational Factors
A detailed analysis ofthe above scenarios was performed with respect to dispersant-use logistics and
factors that affect operational efficiency. The objective was to assess the current level of dispersant
capability in the Gulf as tested against the selected spill scenarios. Two key factors are the
availability of dispersant and the capability of various piatforms for delivering and applying the
dispersant.
Dispersant Availability. The quantities of dispersant immediately available to fight spills in the
GOM area are of the order of 183,000 gallons (147,000 gaUons from Region 6 and 36,000 gallons
from Region 4). At least a portion of the remaining 222,000 gallons of dispersant located elsewhere
could be made available for use on spills in the Gulf within 24 hours. In addition to the stockpiles
already in place, dispersant manufacturers claim to be capable of producing approximately 44,000
gallons per day on an emergency basis.
Application Platforms. A crucial component of the dispersant response system is the spraying
platform used to apply dispersants. Key features of the available platforms are outlined as follows.
C-130/ADDS Pack. The C-130 aircraft, equipped with the ADDS Pack (Airborne Dispersant
Delivery System) has the greatest overall dispersant delivery capacity of any existing
platform. This is by virtue of its high payload, spray rate, swath width and transit speed. At
present, its main drawback in the Gulf of Mexico is that start-up times may be lengthy. At
008930
present (December 2000), spraying would not begin until the morning ofthe second day of
the spill, in most cases.
DC-4. This platform is modeled after the dedicated dispersant spraying aircraft owned by
Airborne Support Incorporated of Houma, LA. This aircraft has the greatest delivery
capacity of any dedicated aircraft application system currently available in the U.S. The key
feature ofthe system is that it operates on a "firehouse" basis, meaning that it is dedicated to
the task of dispersant spraying and is in a constant state of readiness. Its start-up time is one
hour or less.
DC-3. This platform is also modeled after the dedicated dispersant spraying aircraft owned
by Airborne Support Incorporated. The aircraft has the second greatest delivery capacity of
the dedicated aircraft systems. This system also reports a start-up time of one hour or less.
Cessna AT-802 (Agtruck). These are small, single engine aircraft that are purpose-built for
aerial spraying. In the U. S. a group of operators have organized to offer a dispersant spraying
service using this aircraft. A number of these are available in the Gulf area. These operators
guarantee a start-up time of four hours or less. These have a lesser payload capacity than
certain ofthe larger aircraft, but this deficiency is somewhat compensated for by availability
ofmultipJe platforms. These have a somewhat more limited range over water than the large,
mUlti-engine aircraft.
Helicopter. Helicopters equipped with spray buckets have the advantage of availability. They
are limited by their small payload and limited range. They are highly maneuverable and
capable of being re-supplied near a spill site, which greatly increases their operational
efficiency.
Vessels. There are a number of vessel systems currently available in the Gulf area. These
vary widely in terms of their payloads, pump rates and swath widths. Certain of the response
vessels have relatively low payloads, which severely limits their capabilities. However, the
recent addition oflarger, high-speed crew-cargo vessels, equipped with portable dispersant
spray systems and deck-mounted marine portable tanks have greatly improved the response
capability of this group.
Results of Analysis. The following are the main results of the logistics analysis.
1. In the batch spill scenarios the rate of emulsification exerts a very strong influence over
dispersion efficiency. In scenarios involving oils that have little tendency to emulsify, the oil
dissipates naturally within hours or days and the effect of dispersants is to reduce the
persistence of oil only slightly. In scenarios involving oils with a high tendency to emulsify,
the time windows are very short, approximately seven hours. For some platforms this allows
time for one or two sorties at most, while for others the time window is too brief to complete
even a single sortie. Changing platforms had little impact on the results: The systems with
the largest payloads (e.g., C-130) reduced the volume of persistent oil present by a few tens
of percentage points in only the smaller spill scenario (20,000 bbl scenario).
008931
2. The impact of dispersants is most evident in scenarios with oils that do emulsify. but also do
have a relatively long time window, up to 58 hours. In the smallest of these scenarios
(Scenario 2b, 20,000 bbl), the platforms with the highest delivery capacities (C-130 and DC4) are capable of dispersing the entire spill, but the smaller platforms are not. When the
capacities of all platforms to deliver dispersant over a 12-hour period and a 30-mile distance
were compared to the C-130, their relative performances would be as follows: DC-4, 0.57
times the C-130, DC-3, 0.23; Agtruck AT-802, 0.25; helicopter,0.12; Vessel A, 0.08 and
Vessel D, 0.73.
3. Both helicopter and vessel systems have the advantage of being capable of being re-supplied
at the spill site, thus avoiding the necessity of traveling to their base of operations. By resupplying at the spill site, their performance can be improved by factors of2.7 (helicopter)
and 4.5 (vessel). The performance ofthese platforms relative to the C130, when supplied at
site would be 0.32 and 0.36, respectively.
4. The distance from the spill site to the base of re-supply influences performance. Increasing
the operating distance from 30 miles to 100 miles reduces performance of most platforms to
50 to 75 percent of their capacities at 30 miles. By increasing the operating distance to 300
miles, delivery capacities are reduced to 40 to 60 percent of their capacities at 30 miles. The
helicopter system could not be used for responses at 100 miles, nor the AT-802 at 300 miles
because of range limitations.
5. For blowout spills, as with batch spills, the effects of dispersant use on oil fate depends on
the properties and behavior of the oil. Blowouts of oils that do not emulsify or that emulsify
very slowly will disperse quickly by natural means, and dispersants may not affect their
persistence greatly. Other oils which emulsify relatively quickly can be strongly affected by
dispersant operations.
6. Blowouts which emulsify quickly cannot be fully dispersed because dispersant operations
must be suspended at night and a portion ofthe oil that is spilled overnight will emulsify to
undispersible levels. When a blowout and batch spill of identical size (20,000 bbl) and oil
type (A v-E) are compared, the batch spill can be fully dispersed, but the blowout can not
because of the "overnight effect". The more quickly the oil emulsifies, the greater the
proportion that will become undispersible.
7. When surface and subsea blowouts ofidentical size and oil type are compared, dispersion of
the subsea blowout is much less effective operationally than the surface blowout due to its
larger width, smaller oil thickness and more rapid emulsification.
8. Payload and operating distance control overall operational effectiveness in blowout spills as
in batch spills, but these influences are less evident when blowout rates are ofthe order of
5000 BOPD or less. At these discharge rates the larger platforms have excess capacity, and
so their logistic advantage over the smaller platforms are less pronounced.
9. Overall, the results of the scenarios analyzed suggest that the largest spill that can be ful1y
treated using existing response capabilities lies in the area of3180 m 3 for batch spills or 800
m3 /day for 4 days for continuous spills.
008932
10. Response to the large, deepwater blowout scenarios (Scenarios 8a and 8b) is difficult for
several reasons. First, these spills occur furthest from any base of operations. At this long
distance, a spill of even modest size is beyond the capabilities of single units of most aerial
systems, except the C-1301ADDS Pack system. In theory the amount of oil discharged each
day, 100,000 barrels, is within the operating capacity of all of the large fixed-wing response
resources in the Gulf of Mexico region, provided this were supplemented with two,
preferably three, of the ADDS Pack systems from outside the region. This assumes that the
operation achieves both a very high level of dispersant effectiveness and operational
efficiency. Second, these two scenarios involve extremely large amounts of oil. The daily
discharge rates for oil are so large that they would exhaust the North American stockpiles of
dispersant within the first two to six days ofthe spill, assuming that the dispersant could be
delivered to the spill that quickly. The operation would prove extremely difficult because the
daily dispersant requirements vastly exceed the available delivery capability by many times
(from 5 to 19 C-130/ADDS Pack systems would be needed).
Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use

A detailed analysis of selected scenarios was conducted to study the environmental risks associated
. with untreated and chemically dispersed spills from offshore MMS-regulated facilities in the Gulf of
Mexico. The objective was to determine whether or not dispersants offered a net environmental
benefit in treating spills from these facilities. The key variables in these assessments were spill
location, distance from shore, and the type of spill (i.e., batch spill versus blowout spill).
An important variable in the environmental assessment was the location of the spill. At the initiation
ofthe project six launch sites were suggested by Minerals Management Service for consideration,
including: a) shallow water off Texas; b) shallow water off Louisiana; c) a mid-shelf site part way
between sites a) and b); d) the Flower Gardens Area; e) a deepwater offshore site; and f) the Destin
Dome Area. Upon consideration of the fate and movement of oil and a preliminary assessment of
environmental issues, spills from three sites; a), c) and f) were considered in detail.
Results of the Analysis

From the perspective of environmental risk and potential net environmental benefit of dispersantuse, the scenarios analyzed here fall into three categories.
a. One group includes oils that disperse very quickly, by natural means. Regardless oflaunch
point, these spills disperse naturally in offshore waters; do not threaten shorelines or
nearshore waters; and pose only very modest environmental risks. Chemical dispersion does
little to reduce the impact of these spills and therefore offers little in the way of a net
environmental benefit.
b. A second group of scenarios includes those in which the oils are persistent and could cause
significant impact if untreated, but in which spills are small enough and time windows are
long enough to permit dispersant operations to disperse all or most ofthe oil. In these spills,
dispersants can greatly reduce the risks associated with the untreated slick and can offer a net
environmental benefit provided the risks posed by the dispersed oil are low. Net
environmental benefit issues are clearest in these scenarios.
008933
c. The last group includes all of the spills in which oils emulsify too quickly for dispersant
operations to be mounted or in which spill volumes greatly exceed the capability of
platforms. In these scenarios dispersants do little to reduce the impact ofthe untreated spill
and therefore offer little net environmental benefit.
The main conclusion from this work is that if dispersants are used to treat spills from MMSregulated offshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, there will be a net environmental benefit in
almost every case. The reason for this is that the launch sites considered in this study are all offshore.
If spills from these sites are sprayed with dispersants near the spill site (as they must be if the
dispersant is to be effective). the spraying will take place offshore and the environmental risks from
the dispersed oil will be very low or at least lower than the risks from the untreated spill.
The detailed analysis of a spill from an offshore launch site, Mid-Point, showed that there was a net
environmental benefit of dispersant use. In this case, the untreated slick persisted to reach the
shoreline and caused damage, while the same spill dispersed offshore caused far less damage. This
situation is likely to hold in many other locations in the Gulf, even near the shallowest of the
offshore hard-bottom communities, such as the Flower Garden Banks. The latter are deep enough to
be relatively safe from damage in cases where dispersants are used nearby.
The spill from a near shore launch site, Texas Nearshore, was unique because only in" this scenario
there were there significant drawbacks from using dispersants. However, despite this, dispersants
still offered a net environmental benefit. In this case, the untreated spill posed important risks to both
economic and biological resources. However, unlike all other scenarios in which the dispersed case
posed very few risks, in the Texas Nearshore case, the dispersed case posed a significant risk to at
least one major economic resource, namely the shrimp fishery. On balance dispersants still appeared
to offer a net environmental benefit, but there is some uncertainty surrounding this result. The risk
posed by the dispersed case involved the shrimp fishery. The dispersed spill posed no biological risk
to the shrimp stock, but the cloud of dispersed oil might result in a temporary and localized closure
to the fishery. The local policies toward fishery closures and local attitudes toward the valuation of
economic and biological resources could have a bearing on the analysis of net benefit.
The Destin Dome scenario demonstrated that the benefits of dispersants vary from place to place in
the Gulf. This is because there are wide variations in the sensitivities of coastal zones to the effects
of untreated oil. There are also spatial"variations in the sensitivity of the offshore community to
dispersed oil, as well, but these differences appear to be less dramatic. This supports the conclusion
that there will be a net benefit of using dispersants on offshore spills throughout most of the study
area. The only variation appears to be in the size of the benefit.
The blowout scenario showed that the net environmental benefit of using dispersants is far greater in
blowout spills than in batch spills of the same size. This is because the impact of an untreated
blowout spill can be far greater than for a batch spill. The damage caused by an untreated batch spill
will involve only small, localized area, while that from a blowout will cover a larger area and be
greater as a consequence. On the other hand, when a blowout is treated with dispersants, any
reSUlting damage is restricted to the vicinity ofthe spill site and is no greater than in the case ofthe
batch spill.
008934
While spills will certainly fall into these categories, at present the behavior of any given spill cannot
be accurately predicted. It is important to recognize that the results of the scenarios analyzed here
were based on computer simulations and assumptions concerning dispersant effectiveness rates and
rates of emulsification. Many of the processes involved cannot be estimated precisely enough to
allow a prediction ofthe effectiveness of a dispersant operation in advance. Rather, during an actual
spill, it will be necessary to make decisions about the potential usefulness of dispersants and the
effectiveness of dispersant applications based on direct real-time observations rather than on
computer simulations. For this reason, it will be necessary to have these monitoring capabilities in
place in order to use dispersants effectively.
For purposes of future work, it is important to recognize that natural resource databases such as
Gulf-Wide Information System and Texas Coastal Oil Spill Planning and Response Toolkit contain
little information concerning resources, such as fish, shellfish and fisheries, that are at risk from
chemically dispersed oil. As a consequence, assessments of risk and net environmental benefit that,
are based solely on these sources would under-represent risks to these groups and would be biased in
favor of dispersants.
008935
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. I
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objective ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Study Approach .................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Structure of Report ................................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Scope and Limitations of Study ............................................................................................ 4
2. Basics of Spill Behavior and Dispersants ................................................................................... 6
2.1 General Aspects of S pill Fate and Behavior ......................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Oil Type ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 The Main Spill Processes ............................................................................................... 7
Drifting ................................................................................................................................ 7
Slick Spreading ................................................................................................................... 7
Evaporation ......................................................................................................................... 9
Natural Dispersion ............................................................................................................ 11
Emulsification ..................................... ! ............................................................................. 12
2.1.3 Oil Spi1l Types and Influence on Behavior .................................................................. 13
Shallow Water Subsea Blowouts ...................................................................................... 14
Subsea Blowout Behavior in Deep Water (>300 m) ........................................................ 16
Above-Surface Blowouts .................................................................................................. 17
Pipeline Discharges ........................................................................................................... 18
2.1.4 Modeling Oil Spill Fate and Behavior ......................................................................... 18
2.2 How Dispersants Work ....................................................................................................... 20
2.3 Main Factors Influencing Dispersant Effectiveness ........................................................... 23
2.3.1 Definition of Dispersant Effectiveness ........................................................................ 23
2.3.2 Simple Approach for Assessing Dispersant Effectiveness .......................................... 24
2.3.3 Problems in Obtaining High Dispersant Effectiveness for Spills at Sea ..................... 26
Dosage Control ...................... ;.......................................................................................... 26
Oil Viscosity and Water-in-Oil Emulsification ................................................................ 28
Herding and Dispersant Drop Size ................................................................................... 30
Sea Energy ........................................................................................................................ 31
Dispersant Type - Corexit 9527 versus Corexit 9500 ...................................................... 32
008936
Method of Application: Neat versus Water-Diluted Dispersant.. ..................................... 33

Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 34
Salinity .............................................................................................................................. 34
2.4 European Field Experience with Dispersants in the 1990s................................................. 35
2.4.1 Experimental Spills ...................................................................................................... 36
Spraying of Dispersant, September 1993, North Sea offU.K. ......................................... 36
Spraying ofDemulsifier and Dispersant, August 1994, North Sea offU.K ..................... 37
Spraying of Demulsifier and Dispersant, June 1994, North Sea off Norway ................... 38
Spraying Dispersant on Steady-State Discharges, 1993, 1994, 1995, U.K ...................... 39
2.4.2 Sea Empress Spin in 1995 ........................................................................................... 41
Activities and Observations .............................................................................................. 41
Oil Budget ......................................................................................................................... 46
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 48
3. Gulf Of Mexico OCS Oils and their Likely DispersibiJity ....................................................... 49
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 49
3.2 Analysis ofGOMR Oils as Provided in MMS Database .................................................... 50
3.3 Analysis Of Gulf Oils That Have Undergone Spill-Related Testing .................................. 52
3.4 Modeling and Categorizing Representative GOMR Crude Oils ........................................ 56
4. Oil Spill Scenarios .................................................................................................................... 59
4.1 Basic Considerations........................................................................................................... 59
4.2 Fixed Environmental and Other Conditions ....................................................................... 60
4.3 Model Oils .......................................................................................................................... 61
4.4 List of Selected Scenarios and Analysis Approach ............................................................ 61
4.5 Scenario Modeling Results ................................................................................................. 65
Batch Spills: Scenarios 1 through 3 ...................................................................................... 67
Above Sea Blowouts: Scenarios 4 and 5 .............................................................................. 68
Subsea Blowouts: Scenarios 6 and 7..................................................................................... 69
5. Analysis of Logistics and Operational Efficiency Factors ....................................................... 70
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 70
5.2 Setting ................................................................................................................................. 71
5.2.1 Spill Conditions ........................................................................................................... 71
5.2.2 Response Resources ..................................................................................................... 74
5.2.3 Influence of Day Length, Weather, and Oceanographic Conditions ........................... 83
5.3 Dispersant Delivery Capacity ............................................................................................. 88
5.3.1 Batch Spills .................................................................................................................. 88
ii
008937
5.3 .1.1 Method and Assumptions in Logistics Modeling for Batch Spills ....................... 88
5.3.1.2 Response Capabilities for Batch Spills ................................................................. 91
5.3.2 Blowouts .................................................................................................................... 103
5.3.2.1 Main Considerations ........................................................................................... 103
5.3.2.2 Blowout Spill Model ........................................................................................... ]04
5.3.2.3 Method of Logistics Modeling for Blowout Spills ............................................. 106
5.3.1.4 Response Capabilities for Blowout Spills ........................................................... 106
5.5 Summary of Dispersant Delivery Capacity ...................................................................... 115
5.6 Targeting and Monitoring ................................................................................................. 118
5.6.1 Targeting .................................................................................................................... 118
5.6.2 Effectiveness Monitoring ........................................................................................... 119
6. Assessment of Factors Influencing Net Environmental Benefit ............................................. 122
6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 122
6.2 Methods for Assessing Net Environmental Benefit for Dispersants ................................ 122
6.2.1 Valued Environmental Components (VECs) ............................................................. 125
6.2.1.1 Oil Sensitive Habitats ......................................................................................... 126
6.2.1.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 128
6.2.1.3 Finfish, Shellfish and Commercial Fisheries ...................................................... 130
6.2.1.4 Recreational Resources and Human Use Features .............................................. 133
6.2.2 General Method for Analyzing Spill Scenarios ......................................................... 134
6.2.3 Fate and Movements ofOil. ....................................................................................... 139
6.2.3.1 Fate and Behavior of the Spills ........................................................................... 139
6.2.3.2 Movement of Oil ................................................................................................. 140
6.2.4 Sensitivity of Valued Environmental Components .................................................... 143
6.2.5 Vulnerability and Spatial Distribution of Valued Environmental Components ........ 148
6.2.6 Recovery Potential ..................................................................................................... 149
6.2.7 Relative Importance of Valued Environmental Components .................................... 150
6.2.8 Assessing Net Environmental Benefit ....................................................................... 150
6.3 Analysis of Factors Influencing Net Environmental Benefit............................................ 152
6.3.1 Analysis of Spill Scenarios ........................................................................................ 159
6.3.1.1 Scenario MidPointl2b/Summer ......................................................................... 159
6.3.1.2 Scenario Texas NS/2b/Summer .......................................................................... 165
6.3 .1.3 Scenario Destin Dome/2b/Summer ..................................................................... 170
6.3.1.4 Scenario Texas/2blWinter ................................................................................... 174
6.3.1.5 Blowout Scenario Texas Nearshore/4b/Summer ................................................ 179
iii
008938
6.4 Discussion of Net Environmental Benefit Analysis ......................................................... 186

7. Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 190
7.1 Likely Dispersibility of GOMR Oils ................................................................................ 190
7.2 Response Analysis and Contingency Planning ................................................................. 191
7.3 Net Environmental Benefits of Dispersant-Use ................................................................ 193
8. References ............................................................................................................................... 194
iv
008939
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Major initiatives are underway in the U.S. to facilitate the use of chemical dispersants to treat marine
oil spills. U.S. and State governments have preauthorized the use of dispersants in many areas, and
response organizations are prepared to use dispersants on a major scale ifneed be. In general, after
many years of debate and study, there is a consensus that dispersant use could become an integral
part of the response network for spills in coastal waters.
Work to date on dispersants has focused on instantaneous spills from vessels, and not on spills from
blowouts at offshore oil and gas facilities. It is recognized, however, that such continuous discharges
are generally good candidates for dispersant treatment because fresh, unemulsified oil is constantly
available for treatment at source. Also, vessel-based dispersant application systems are well suited to
such spills, and recent research has shown that fire monitors, such as those typically found on supply
boats serving the oil and gas industry, can be used effectively in applying dispersant.
1.2 Objective
The objective of the research project is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the operational
and environmental factors associated with the use of chemical dispersants to treat oil spills from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities that are regulated by the U.S. Minerals Management
Service (MMS). The scope of the study is restricted to the OCS waters of the U.S. GulfofMexico.
One goal is to help expedite dispersant-use decision-making and planning for such spills. Another
goal is to provide a basis for MMS regulation writing.
1.3 Study Approach

The study approach involves a detailed assessment of all factors associated with the use of chemical
dispersants to treat oil spills from MMS-regulated OCS facilities. As mentioned, the focus is on the
-1-
008940
Gulf of Mexico (GOM) area at this time. This area is the most advanced in terms of operations and
public support for dispersant-use, has a range of OCS oils that are likely amenable to dispersant
treatment, and has already been the focus of numerous dispersant-use studies and training programs.
A future study could include the MMS Pacific OCS Region.
Many factors can influence the effectiveness of a dispersant operation in removing oil slicks from
the surface and reducing the environmental risks from spills. The main ones are listed in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1 Factors influencing the feasibility, effectiveness or usefulness of dispersants

Factors affecting
effectiveness
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
type of oil
type of dispersant
spill characteristics
salinity
temperature
mixing energy
application systems
and application
strategies
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Factors affecting operational

efficiency.
Factors affecting net

environmental benefit
distance offshore
navigability
weather
characteristics and availability of
application platforms and spraying
systems
timeliness of response
availability and type of dispersant
capability to identify target slicks and
direct platforms to them
capability for effectiveness monitoring
$ resources at risk
- ecological resources
- commercial resources
- rig-reef communities
- human-use resources
$ fate and persistence of oil
- suspended sediments
- nearshore circulation
$ sensitivity of resources
$ vulnerability of resources
$ resource recovery potential
For each of the factors listed in Table 1-1 the task is to:
1. provide an overview of the subject and its relevance to decision-making, operations and
planning;
2. define the existing knowledge base, highlighting significant developments and their
implications; and
3. identifY significant gaps in knowledge and make recommendations on steps that could be
taken to address the deficiencies.
Several factors are well understood, but others are not, and for these it becomes important to identifY
gaps in knowledge. These deficiencies can be used by MMS managers when developing priorities
for future work in these areas.
-2-
008941
1.4 Structure of Report

The report starts with a long chapter (Chapter 2) that covers the basics of marine oil spill behavior
and the use of chemical dispersants as a countermeasure. Particular reference is made to the general
factors that affect dispersant effectiveness. This chapter will help non-specialists with the subsequent
chapters where a basic knowledge of spills and dispersants is taken for granted.
Chapter 3 presents a detailed analysis of the oils that are produced in the Gulf of Mexico Outer
Continental Shelf (GOMR). The purpose of this is (I) to determine whether there is a reasonable
number of GOMR oils that are likely to be good candidates for dispersant use, and (2) to select a
group of oils for modeling purposes that are representative of oils produced in GOMR that range
from being highly dispersible to poorly dispersible. These oils are used in Chapter 4 to describe and
evaluate eight basic spill scenarios involving blowouts, pipeline and tank spills of various size. The
spills in these scenarios are described quantitatively in terms of the spills' properties (area, thickness,
viscosity, etc.) and fate (percent evaporated, dispersed, etc.) as a function of time. Of particular
importance is a description the properties of each spill that affect dispersant effectiveness and
dispersant-use feasibility.
In Chapter 5 a logistical analysis is performed to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of

various dispersant systems and platforms to disperse the selected spills. Analysis ofthe dispersant
response systems is quantitative and uses a computer model designed especially for the project.
The goal of Chapter 6 is to assess the potential net environmental benefit of using dispersants to
treat the selected spills in the GOMR. The first part of the chapter identifies the valued natural and
human-use resources that might be at risk from the spills, both untreated and dispersed. The second
part estimates the level of risk posed by specific spills to the species.
Finally, Chapter 7 presents a discussion of the study's major findings and Chapter 8 presents
conclusions and recommendations arising from the study.
-3-
008942
1.5 Scope and Limitations of Study

This research project covers the entire Gulf of Mexico OCS area, and attempts to address all aspects
of dispersant use within this area, including dispersant effectiveness, operational feasibility, logistics
and environmental effects. The approach used to cover these conditions has been to analyze a large
number of spill and response scenarios that span the full range ofconditions encountered in the area.
The report is lengthy due to the large scope of the study. To help simplifY the report and make it
readable, we have focused directly on the issue of the "feasibility" of dispersant use on spills in the
Gulf, and not on the details that will have to be analyzed in developing a credible dispersant
response capability for the area. For any spill and dispersant-response scenario, there are numerous
parameters to consider, including: spill factors (type, size, duration, and location); dispersant factors
(type, dosage, and availability); and platform factors (type, specifications, availability and
operational conditions and limitations). The following assumptions have been made regarding these
parameters:
1. The analysis of dispersant logistics focuses on estimating the operating capacity of each type of
platform, given its logistics characteristics and the fate and behavior of the slicks in question.
The objectives are: 1) to identifY the platforms that are clearly well suited or poorly suited to
handling the types of spill scenarios in question; and 2) to estimate the approximate upper limit
of dispersant delivery capacity of each platform as a function of spill type and distance from the
spill to the base of operations. As such, the estimates of delivery capacity reported here represent
the "best-possible" delivery capacities of a single unit of each platform type. It is recognized that
in an actual operation, the actual delivery rates ofthese platforms will be less than estimated due
to factors such as delays due to slow start-up, maintenance requirements, availabilities of crews
and problems with coordinating the various components ofthe spraying operation. These factors
are not easily predicted at present. It is also recognized that for larger spills, operators will
deploy various delivery systems at once, thereby greatly increasing the capacity of the overall
response beyond that of any single operating unit.
-4-
008943
2. It is assumed that dispersant operations at nighttime are not feasible. Although approaches to
nighttime operations have been suggested from time to time, these have not yet been tested or
proven. Research is needed in this area because of its importance in improving dispersant
operational efficiency.
3. In this study, the ratio of volume of oil dispersed per volume of dispersant sprayed is set at 20: 1.
Historically, during actual spills, the ratios of volume of oil dispersed to volume of dispersant
sprayed have ranged from less than 1: 1 to 75: 1. Clearly in any situation this value will vary
widely depending on a variety of variables including the type of oil, sea state and efficiency of
the operation, to name only a few. For purposes of this work an intermediate value of20:1 is
assumed. Coincidentally, this value (or 25: 1) has been the value recommended for years by the
manufacturer of Corexit (the predominant dispersant available in the U.S.)
4. The rates of spill emulsification and windows-of-opportunity for effective dispersant use that are
used in the study were derived from computer model spill simulations based on a few selected
oils and average environmental conditions for the Gulf of Mexico region. It is important to
recognize that during an actual spill, emulsification rates and time windows will vary widely
with the composition and properties of the oil and the environmental conditions. In addition,
different parts ofthe spill may weather and emulsify at different rates.
5. There is limited field information available on the effectiveness of dispersants as a function of oil
viscosity. One accepted rule ofthumb is that the transition point between dispersibility and nondispersibility lies in the range of2000 to 20,000 cP, depending on the dispersant used, oil type
and other factors. For the analysis of scenarios in this study we have assumed that the viscosity
threshold for effective dispersibility is 5000 cPo
6. It is important to remember that within the Gulf of Mexico study area there are hundreds of oilproducing formations yielding thousands of oils. Only a few ofthese oils (approximately 28 oils)
have been characterized well enough to simulate their spill behavior. For purposes ofthe present
study these 28 oils have been assumed to be representative of the full range of oils produced
within the Gulf of Mexico region.
-5-
008944
2. Basics of Spill Behavior and Dispersants

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the basics of marine oil spill behavior and the use of
chemical dispersants as a countermeasure, with particular reference to factors that can affect
dispersant effectiveness. This will help in understanding subsequent sections that discuss the
practicalities and limitations of using dispersants
2.1 General Aspects of Spill Fate and Behavior

2.1.1 Oil Type
The fate and behavior of a marine oil spill are strongly influenced by the chemical composition of
the oil being spilled, either a crude oil or a refined product.
Crude oils contain thousands of different compounds. Hydrocarbons are the most abundant,
accounting for up to 98% ofthe total composition. The chemical composition can vary significantly
from different producing areas, and even from within a particular formation. As oil from a particular
field is exploited over the years its composition can change significantly. Most Asales@ crude oils
from a specific area are blends of oils from several distinct fields. As some fields become depleted
and others are brought onto stream, the composition of the Asales@ oil changes accordingly.
Petroleum contains a significant fraction (0 to 20%) of compounds called asphaltenes which are of
higher molecular weight (1000 to 10,000 glmole). In spill situations, asphaltenes contribute
significantly to the oil's tendency to form water-in-oil emulsion.
The refined oils of interest in this study are diesel oils, which are primarily used as fuel on the OCS
platforms and on the vessels that serve the offshore industry. Diesel oil is simply a distillation
product of crude oil that has had the very light and very heavy hydrocarbon fractions removed.
Diesel oi I does not contain asphaltenes and hence does not tend to emulsifY when spilled, making the
product a good candidate for dispersant use. This is discussed later.
-6-
008945
2.1.2 The Main Spill Processes
When oil is spilled at sea it is subject to several so-called weathering processes. The processes of
importance to dispersant use or dispersant effectiveness are drifting (advection), spreading,
evaporation, natural dispersion of oil in water, and water-in-oil emulsification.
Drifting
Drifting or advection is the process of surface slicks moving away from the site of a spill by water
currents and winds. The combination of residual current movements and wind-induced surface
movements (whose velocities are about 3.5 percent of the wind velocity) determine the final slick
drift. In nearshore marine waters, the movement of oil slicks is also affected by tidal currents, river
outflows and long-shore currents. The
process of spill advection does not have a
major influence on dispersant effectiveness;
rather, dispersant use has a major influence
on oil fate. If the surface oil is not dispersed
it will be influenced by wind (and water
current) forces, and thus can be driven
ashore by onshore winds. On the other hand,
ifthe oil is dispersed, the movement of the
oil droplets in the water will only be
influenced by the water current. Hence, the
trajectory of surface oil is different than the trajectory of the same oil dispersed. This has an
influence on environmental impact considerations related to dispersant use.
Slick Spreading
The most notable feature of any marine oil spill is the surface spreading phenomenon. Numerous
models are available for predicting oil spreading behavior and its dependence on oil properties and
environmental conditions (Finnigan 1996). All models relate the properties of the oil (density,
-7-
008946
viscosity and interfacial tension) to its spreading on calm water. Most models today also include an
oceanic diffusion term to describe spreading behavior in more realistic sea conditions. In addition,
some models take into account the influence of pour point in the spreading process. The Apour pointf
of an oil is the temperature below which the oil will not flow, and it increases as the spilled oil
evaporates. Pour point is a major problem for many oils, but generally not for GOMR crude oils.
Most of these will become highly viscous through emulsification well before the pour point ofthe
spilled oil reaches the generally high water temperatures in the area.
The generally fast rate of oil spreading is demonstrated in Figure 2.1, which is a version ofa figure
first developed in the late 1970s (Mackay et al. 1980a) and still used extensively today.
10000
100.000m3
1000
10.000m3
"e
100
..
Q.
II)
10
"f
iii
....
{!.
0.1
0.01
1
V
2
V
8 days
Y
0.001
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
llme Since Start of Spill (hours)
Figure 2-1 Total Area of Slick (thick + thin) versus Time
The figure can be used to show that for a spill of, say, 1000 m (6300 barrels) the total slick area
2
reaches about 10 km in one or two days of spreading, and this is equivalent to an average slick
thickness of 0.1 mm. This average thickness value of 0.1 mm is mentioned often in the dispersant
literature in the 1970s and 1980s as the thickness to consider in the design and implementation of a
dispersant response operation. Belief in the number led to the concept of a one-pass (carpet-8-
008947
sweeping-like) mode of dispersant application and to limitations in some jurisdictions on dispersant

dosages allowed on spills based on this one-pass concept (Lindblom 1979,1981; Exxon 1992, 1994;
Allen and Dale 1995).
The current expert view, and the one considered in most spill models in popular use today, is that
marine spills do not spread uniformly as described above. Oil spills are now known to be composed
of thick patches (usually thicker than 1 mm) that contain most of the spill's volume (the rule-ofthumb is that 90 to 95 percent of an oil spill's volume is contained in 5 to 10 percent its area) and that
these patches are surrounded by sheens (about 1 to 10 ~m or 0.001 to 0.01 mm). The areas noted in
Figure 2.1 represent the total area of thick patches and sheen.
Although the phenomenon of thick/thin spreading is widely accepted today, and there is much
remote sensing and photographic imagery to support the notion of slicks being composed of thick
and sheen portions, there is surprisingly little quantitative information available in the literature on
the subject. Nonetheless, some well documented experimental spills have involved measurement of
either thickness or volume/area (Mackay and Chau 1986, Lunel and Lewis 1993a, Lewis et al.
1995a, Walker et al. 1995, Brandvik et al. 1996) and these indeed show that oil spills at sea, even
relatively small ones, do tend to stay relatively thick (> 1 mm) for reasonable periods oftime.
This issue of slick thickness is of great importance in regard to dispersant effectiveness. It is now
generally accepted in the U.S. (Scientific 1995) that the one-pass concept for dispersant application
is not appropriate for dealing with the thick part of spills, and that the multi-pass approach that has
always been used in the U.K. is the only possible way of completely dosing thick portions of marine
spills when using aircraft application systems (Lunel et al. 1997).
Evaporation
Evaporation is one of the most important processes that affect the properties and therefore the
behavior of spilled oil. The major effect on dispersant effectiveness is that evaporation losses
advance the point at which spilled oil Aemulsifies@ or Agels@. This greatly increases the viscosity of
the residual oil and its resistance to chemical or natural dispersion.
-9-
008948
Evaporation is one the most intensively studied and predictable processes (Mackay 1984). It is
known that the evaporation rate of an oil slick is controlled by: (1) the temperature of the oil and the
air; (2) the surface area ofthe oil in contact with air; (3) the thickness ofthe oil; (4) wind speed; and
(5) the concentration and vapor pressure of the individual components of the oil. Although there
have been many studies of oil evaporation rates, they have all followed a similar approach of
determining an overall Amass transfer coefficient@ as a function of environmental conditions (see for
example, Nadeau and Mackay 1978 and Stiver and Mackay 1983). In these studies, the volume or
mass fraction of oil evaporated is related to an exposure coefficient (combining time, oil volume and
area, and the mass transfer coefficient to the atmosphere) and to the pressure-concentration behavior
of the oil. The unique aspect ofthis approach is that it permits the results from a variety oflaboratory
evaporation experiments to be easily extrapolated to actual environmental conditions with a
relatively high degree of confid~nce. Table 2-1 illustrates the results of this approach in predicting
the evaporative loss from a 1 mm slick of unemulsified crude oil as a function of sea state.
Table 2-1 Evaporation of Light and Medium Crude Oil Slicks as a Function of Sea State (calculated
using approach in Nadeau and Mackay 1978)
Oil Loss (percent)
Exposure Time = 6 h
Exposure Time = 24 h
Sea State
5C
15C
25C
5C
Low (0 to 1)
16
21
28
23
32
38
Medium (2 to 3)
23
32
39
28
37
44
High (4 to 6)
26
35
42
29
38
45
Assumptions: Slick TIlIckness = 1 mm; 011 DenSity = .836 g.cm
15C
25C
-j
In the current study, oi1 wen blowouts are a major concern and focus. Spills associated with abovesurface or platform-based blowouts tend to evaporate much faster than conventional batch spills
because the oil discharged into the air is first shattered into tiny droplets which present a much larger
oil/air surface area for evaporation. Slicks from subsea blowouts that originate at the seabed also
tend to evaporate quickly because they are often very thin to begin with and, again, present a large
surface area for oil evaporation. Both these cases are discussed later in more detail in reference to
specific GOMR oUs.
-10-
008949
Natural Dispersion
The dispersion of oil into the water by natural forces is an important process controlling the longterm fate of oil slicks at sea. In conjunction with evaporation, this process reduces the volume of oil
on the water surface, thereby influencing
the potential extent of surface and
shoreline contamination. The idea behind
chemical dispersion is to greatly increase
the natural rate of oil dispersion by
reducing the cohesion of the oil. If
spilled oil on water has a relatively high
rate of natural dispersion, it will be more amenable to chemical dispersion than oils that are viscous
and normally resistant to natural dispersion.
In slick dispersion, oil droplets are dispersed from the slick. into the water by oceanic mixing. The
larger of these droplets, which are buoyant, resurface quickly and rejoin the slick. The smaller
droplets remain in suspension in the water column. The lighter, more water-soluble hydrocarbons
partition from these droplets into the water phase. Clouds ofthe entrained dissolved and particulate
oils then spread horizontally and vertically by diffusion and other long range transport processes.
When chemical dispersants are used, the process tends to produce a much higher proportion ofthe
very small droplets that tend to stay in permanent suspension in the water column.
Although natural dispersion is a poorly understood process, it is known that oil/water interfacial
tension, oil viscosity, oil buoyancy and slick thickness each inversely affect the ability of a particular
oil to disperse naturally. Sea state is also an important factor controlling the rate and amount of
dispersion. Even light, non-viscous oils do not rapidly disperse under calm conditions. On the other
hand, even the heaviest, emulsified oils can disperse over a period of time in heavy seas with
frequent breaking waves.
The net dispersion rate of oil from a slick into the water will vary greatly depending on the
properties ofthe spiJIed oil and mixing energy. In experimental spills, oil concentrations measured in
the water beneath the slicks have ranged from several hundred ppb to as much as several ppm
-11-
008950
(McAuliffe et al. 1981, Lichtenthaler and Daling 1985, Lunel 1994a, 1995, Lewis et al. 1995a,
Brandvik et al. 1995).
Emulsification
When most crude oils are spilled at sea, they tend to form water-in-oil emulsions. Emulsification
occurs in the presence of mixing energy such as that provided by wave action. During
emulsification, seawater is incorporated
into the oil in the form of microscopic
droplets. This water intake results in
several undesirable changes to the oil.
First, there is a significant increase in the
bulk volume ofthe oil (usually up to a 4or 5-fold increase), greatly increasing the
amount of oily material that can
contaminate shorelines and biological resources. Secondly, there is a marked increase in fluid
viscosity. The much higher viscosities greatly inhibit the chemical or natural dispersion of oil.
The mechanisms and rates ofthe emulsification of oils spilled at sea are poorly understood. Through
some mechanism, the mixing energy associated with waves causes small water droplets to become
entrapped in the oil layer. Several theories have been advanced about the main chemical mechanisms
involved in the process (Bobra 1990, 1991, Walker et al. 1993). Most experts believe that
precipitates of asphaltenes and resins in the oil act as surface active agents to stabilize the water
droplets in the forming emulsion. Without such stabilizing agents the small water droplets in the oil
layer would tend to coalesce into larger droplets which would sink through and leave the oil phase.
In any case, emulsification inhibits dispersion because the process greatly increases oil viscosity.
Spills of some crude oils will start to form emulsion within a few minutes of environmental
exposure, and will form a highly viscous and stable emulsion within hours. This has been recorded
many times during actual and experimental spills. On the other hand, a few crude oils and most
refined petroleum products do not easily emulsify at all. Results from field trials in the mid-1990s
off the U.K. and Norway (Lunel and Lewis 1993a, Walker and Lunel 1995, Lewis et al. 1995a,
-12-
008951
Brandvik et al. 1995) indicate that modem dispersants are relatively effective against weakly-formed
or freshly-formed emulsions and in fact actually seem to Abreak@ such emulsions; that is, their
presence tends to promote the separation or the Acreaming@ of the oil and water phases.
Without question, oil spill emulsification is the most important process that affects spill dispersion
and dispersant effectiveness. It is also (along with natural dispersion) one of the most difficult
process to model or predict on a spill-specific basis. Except perhaps for a few oils that have been
tested extensively, it is virtually impossible to predict when a particular crude oil will start to
emulsifY once spilled in a particular environment, and to predict, once the emulsification process
begins, how long it will take for the spilled oil to form a Astable, highly viscous emulsion.
Nonetheless, modelers of spill behavior have to deal with the problem of spill emulsification because
it is such an important process. The usual tactic is to take advantage of a laboratory test, called the
Mackay-Zagorski Test (Mackay and Zagorski 1982) that was developed to measure (1) an oil=s
tendency to form an emulsion and (2) the stability ofthe emulsion once formed. The test provides
some indication of an oil:s emulsifiability, but does not predict rates of spill emulsification in the
field.
2.1.3 Oil Spill Types and Influence on Behavior
Several possibilities exist for the release of oil in the offshore environment. Oil can be discharged
from a damaged tanker over a relatively short time-frame as a single "batch" of oil. A tanker can also
release oil from a small rupture over an extended period of time either in. a stationary or moving
situation. A pipeline failure can lead to the release of oil and/or gas at the seabed with the
subsequence rise of oil to the surface. A production or exploration wen can be breached at the
seabed and oil and gas will rise to the surface or a well can be breached at the s'urface and oil can
"rain down" on the water's surface. Each of these spill types results in a unique initial oil slick
configuration that can greatly affect the oil's short and long-term behavior.
Oil released from a ruptured tanker, either in batch or continuous form, usually reaches the water
surface in a thick and relatively small area. Once on the water, the competing processes of
008952
evaporation, emulsification, dispersion, and spreading affect the behavior anp properties of the oil
slick. The general behavior of batch spills is familiar, and is not discussed in detail here. Suffice to
note that large batch spills are relatively slow to evaporate because they tend to be thick initially.
The opposite is true for blowout spills. Blowout spills behave differently in other ways as well, and,
because they are infrequent and unfamiliar, they are discussed in some detail.
There are two basic kinds of offshore oil well blowouts. The first is a subsea blowout in which the
discharging oil emanates from a point on the sea bed and rises through the water column to the water
surface. An example of this kind of oil wen blowout was the 1979 Ixtoc 1 blowout in the Bay of
Campeche, Mexico (Ross et al. 1979). The other possibility is an above-surface blowout in which .
the platform maintains its position during the accident (because it is undamaged or bottom-founded)
and the oil discharges into the atmosphere from some point on the platform above the water surface,
and subsequently falls on the water surface some distance downwind. Examples of this kind of oil
well blowout are the 1977 Ekofisk blowout in the North Sea (Audunson 1980) and the Uniacke
blowout on the Scotian Shelf in 1984 (Martec, 1984), both of which were well recorded
scientifically.
Shallow Water Subsea Blowouts

Oil-well blowouts general1y involve two fluids, namely crude oil and natural gas. The volume ratio
of these two fluids is a function of the characteristics ofthe fluids and the producing reservoir. The
natural gas provides the driving force for an uncontrolled blowout. As the well products flow
upwards, the gas expands, finally exiting at the well-head at very high velocities. At this point the oil
makes up only a small fraction ofthe total volumetric flow. At the sea bed the high velocity of gas
exiting the well-head generates a highly turbulent zone that causes the oil to fragment into small
droplets. As the gas rises, oil and water in its vicinity are entrained in the flow and carried to the
surface. In the surface zone, the rising water and oil flow away from the center of the plume in a
radial layer. This radial flow spreads the oil faster than conventional oil spreading or convection thus
resulting in a relatively wide, but very thin, initial slick. At the surface the oil takes on a hyperbolic
shape when subjected to a natural water current, with its apex pointed up-current. Figure 2-2 depicts
the characteristics of a shallow well blowout.
-14-
008953
)
)
Water Current
Subsea Blowout (gas on fire): Top View
. . . . . . . . . . . Turbulent Bubble Zone

'V
Subsea Blowout: Side View
Figure 2-2 Top And Side Views of a Subsea Blowout with the Gas on Fire
-15-
008954
Subsea Blowout Behavior in Deep Water (>300 m)
Unfortunately, little is known about the subject of deep-well blowouts. A deep-water oil spill
experiment took place off the coast of Norway in the summer of2000, and the analysis will improve
our present understanding. A report to MMS in October 1997 (SL Ross 1~97a) summarizes the main
issues associated with deepwater blowouts, and the following is abstracted from that. Much of the
discussion is either theoretical or based on limited bench-scale experimentation.
There are two processes that, under certain conditions, can reduce or eliminate the strong pumping
action caused by the rising gas bubbles :from a subsea blowout and thus dramatically change the
behavior ofthe subsea blowout. The high pressure and low temperatures present at the sea floor in
deepwater situations may cause the natural gas released at the sea bed to combine with water to form
a solid, ice-like substance known as gas hydrate. The gas volume may also be depleted through
dissolution into the water as it rises through the water column from great depths; this is a less
significant process than gas hydrate formation and is not discussed further.
The pressure required for hydrate formation depends on the ambient temperature. Experiments have
identified the thermodynamic conditions suitable for hydrate formation. At water pressures
equivalent to water depths greater than about 900 m, the hydrate crystals form extremely fast and gas
bubbles immediately collapse into large flakes of hydrates. Gas released at depths of about 750
meters will also be completely converted to hydrates, although at a somewhat slower rate due to the
formation ofa layer of hydrate crystals on the bubble surface.
The strong buoyant gas plume evident in a shallow blowout will be lost if the gas is completely
converted to hydrates. Oil droplets wiH rise due to their buoyancy alone under these circumstances.
The movement ofthe oil droplets will now be affected by cross currents during their rise due to the
absence of a strong bubble plume. This will result in the separation ofthe oil droplets based on their
drop size. The large diameter oil drops will surface first and smaller drops will be carried further
down current prior to reaching the surface. Oceanic diffusion processes will result in additional
separation of the oil drops due to their varying residence times in the water column. The final atsurface oil distribution will depend on the oil drop size distribution, the vertical water velocity
-16-
008955
profile and oceanic diffusion processes. This makes the prediction ofthe surface slick characteristics
very difficult since little is known about the likely oil drop size distribution that might be created
during such a release and vertical water velocity profiles and oceanic diffusion processes are not
generally known in sufficient detail for this purpose. However, the surface slicks from these deepwater blowouts will likely be thin due to the separation and lateral diffusion ofthe oil droplets as
they rise to the surface. The initial slick likely will be very long and narrow with thicker oil
accumulating near the source where the largest oil drops will surface.
In view ofthe uncertainties ofthe behavior of very deepwater blowouts, a less rigorous approach has
been taken in analyzing these spills.
Above-Surface Blowouts
In a surface blowout from an offshore platform, the gas and oil exit the well-head at a high velocity
and the oi I is fragmented into a jet of fine droplets. The height that the jet rises above the release
point varies depending on the gas velocity, oil particle size distribution, and the prevailing wind
velocity. The fate of the oil and gas at this point is determined by atmospheric dispersion and the
settling velocity ofthe oil particles. The oil will "rain" down, with the larger droplets falling closer to
the release point. Ifthe gas is blowing through the derrick or some other obstruction, oil droplets will
agglomerate on the obstruction(s) and increase in diameter. During their time in the air the droplets
will evaporate very quickly due to the oil's high temperature and the droplets high surface area-tovolume. As a result of this evaporation, the oil's physical properties will change significantly by the
time the oil reaches the water's surface.
As sea water passes under the area of falling oil it will be Apainted@ by the falling oil and an
accumulation of oil over the width of the fallout zone will occur. Changing wind and water current
directions will affect the ultimate distribution ofthe oil on the water surface in the fallout.
-17-
008956
Pipeline Discharges
Pipelines can carry either a mixture of gas and oil ("live" pipelines) or simply crude oil. Ruptures
from "live" pipelines will behave like short-term blowouts. "Crude only" pipeline spills will result in
surface slicks similar to surface tanker releases because the oil will quickly rise to the surface above
the rupture and form relatively thick slicks.
2.1.4 Modeling Oil Spill Fate and Behavior

As discussed above, the major processes that determine the behavior of oil spilled on water are
evaporation, spreading, natural dispersion into the water column, and the formation of water-in-oil
emulsions. These processes are interrelated and must be considered together to arrive at an accurate
estimate of an oil spill's likely behavior. That is the purpose of oil spill behavior models, of which
there are several available internationally. Most are similar in many ways because they use similar
mathematical algorithms in the structure of the models. For convenience in this study we use the
model developed by S. L Ross Environmental Research. A description ofthe SL Ross Oil Spill
Model (SLROSM) is available on the internet at the web site www.slross.com. At this location a
demonstration model can be downloaded and examined.
The spreading model relies on the work of Fay (1971) and Mackay et al. (1980a) but includes
modifications to account for oil viscosity changes and the development of a yield stress in the oil
(i.e., pour point). Longer term spreading takes into account oceanic diffusion processes according to
relationships developed by Okubo (1971). Evaporation models use the work of Stiver and Mackay
(1983) with modifications developed by S.L. Ross and Mackay (1988). Natural dispersion is
modeled using either Audunson's (1980) natural dispersion model modified to account for oil
density, viscosity, interfacial tension and pour point or Oelvigne's (1985, 1987) oil entrainment
model. In this project Oelvigne's algorithms were selected for the modeling. Emulsification is
modeled using the relationship developed by Mackay and Zagorski (1982) with modifications by
Bobra (1989) and SL Ross and Mackay (1988). Atmospheric dispersion and fallout of oil from
surface blowouts is modeled using the methods described by Turner (1970). The rise of oil droplets
from deep-well blowouts has been modeled, outside ofthe SLROSM model, using equations for the
terminal velocity of a "falling" particle as provided by Perry and Green (1984).
-18-
008957
SLROSM estimates the movement of slicks through the vector addition of the local surface water
current and 3% of the prevailing wind speed. Wind forecasts are entered by the user for each spill
scenario of interest based on the best available data. Surface water currents are provided, in map
form, that identifY the spatial variation in the water velocities. If surface water currents vary with
time, such as in a tidal situation, a number of map sets can be used to represent the variation. The
model is given a "schedule" ofthe time histories for the use of the appropriate map at a given time in
the life of the spill. An option also exists to enter a pre-defined spill trajectory and bypass the
internal trajectory calculations. This is useful if it is desirable to use another model's trajectory
prediction with our oil behavior models.
A body of information on the potential trajectories of oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico has already
been compiled by MMS in the form of Oil-Spill Risk Analyses (OSRA). OSRA are conducted
routinely in connection with proposed lease sales (e.g., Price et aI. 1997, 1998). We have used this
extensive OSRA database in developing spill trajectories in this study.
The Oil-Spill Risk Analyses conducted by MMS are formal assessments of risk of contamination
and damage that might result from accidental spills associated with proposed offshore oil
developments. In each analysis, the risk of contamination of a section of the coastal zone or oilexposure of a specific resource is considered for hypothetical spills originating from specific
offshore locations. Each analysis consists of three parts, as follows.
1.
The first part addresses the probability of spills. Probabilities are estimated based on historical
rates of spills from oes platforms and pipelines and are based on the volumes of oil produced
or transported. For any given project, spill probabilities are based on the volume of oil to be
produced or transported over the production life of a project and the historical spill rates from
similar operations in the U.S.
2.
The second deals with the potential trajectories of spills. This portion ofthe analysis consists of
running a large number of hypothetical trajectories. Analyses are conducted on spills launched
from specific locations. In each run, the trajectory is a consequence of the integrated action of
-19-
008958
temporally and spatially varying winds and ocean currents. Details of the derivation of the
winds and current fields are given in Price et al. 1997, 1998. The output is in the form of a
conditional probability that the oil spilJ will contact a specific segment of shoreline or
environmental resource within a certain travel time.
3. The third part deals with the combined probabilities of occurrence and trajectory. The combined
probability is the likelihood that a spill, greater than a given volume, might occur over the period
of the project and might contact a given receptor.
The process is described in detail in Price et al. (1997, 1998).
In the present study the conditional probability output from OSRA have been used to identifY 1) the
segments of shoreline at risk from spills from specified launch sites and 2) the approximate lengths
oftime required for spills to reach shore from the launch sites. Output from Price et al (1998) were
used in analyses of Destin Dome spills and Price et al. (2000), were used for the remainder. Details
of the use of this output are described, as appropriate, in later sections.
2.2 How Dispersants Work

When spilled on water, oil exhibits a
cohesiveness or resistance to break up. This
cohesive strength is due to the interfacial
tension or contractile. skin between the oj]
and water. A chemical dispersant sprayed
onto an oil slick acts at the oil-water interface
to reduce this interfacial tension. This action
promotes the break-up of the oil film into
droplets that disperse into the water phase. If
the droplets are small enough they will have little buoyancy and will be carried away and diluted by
normal ocean current and movement.
-20-
008959
Surface active agents (surfactants) are the key components of a chemical dispersant. These
compounds contain both a water compatible and an oil compatible group. Because of this molecular
structure, the surfactant locates at the oi1~water interface, reduces the interfacial tension, and thereby
enables the oil slick to break up into finely dispersed oil droplets. Mackay and Hossain (1982)
estimated that a concentration at an oil/water interface of 1 volume of dispersant per 500 volumes of
oil will cause a 20~fold reduction in interfacial tension, say, from 20 dynes/cm to 1 dyne/cm. Since
manufacturers recommend that dispersants be applied at a ratio of I volume of dispersant to 20
volumes of oil, the implication is that only a few percent ofthe dispersant is being effective at any
time, most being present in the bulk of the oil and thus remote from the interface.
Despite the great decrease in interfacial tension, some mixing energy is needed to promote
movement and dispersion ofthe fine oil droplets into the water column. This energy can be supplied
either by the natural motion and currents ofthe sea or by mechanical means such as work boats. The
greater the available energy, the less dispersant is required.
A dispersant formulation also contains a solvent. Since many ofthe surface agents used in oil spill
dispersant formulations are viscous, some form of solvent is necessary to reduce viscosity so that the
mixture may be properly applied by conventional spray equipment. In addition, the solvent may act
to depress the freezing point for low temperature usage and to enhance the mixing/penetration ofthe
surfactant(s) into more viscous oils. In general, present day surfactants have demonstrated very low
toxicity. In addition, .these current formulations have substituted dearomatized hydrocarbons or
aqueous solvents, resulting in very low toxicity dispersant formulations as compared with early
formulations.
By their very nature, present-day dispersants include active ingredients that are more soluble in
water than in oil. So the dispersant must be appJieddirectly to the oil ; otherwise the chemical will
be lost to the water phase. Even when applied directly to the oil the chemicals wi1l leach into the
water, but the rate at which this happens is not weB understood. Most products contain so-called
"anionic" surfactants, like sulphosuccinates, in combination with "non-ionic" surfactants, like
sorbitan ester surfactants (the SPANS family of surfactants) and polyethoxylated sorbitan ester
surfactants (the TWEE~ family). Recent studies on the subject (Knudsen et at. 1994, Hokstad et a!.
-21-
008960
1996) indicate that anionic surfactant compounds will rapidly leach into water, but that the rate of
leaching ofthe non-ionic compounds is uncertain and dependent on a number offactors. Clearly, the
leaching process is a complicated one, and more research is needed in the area. Until more
information becomes available, it can be assumed that certain components of modern dispersant
products wilJ gradually leach from a layer of crude oil into the underlying water column and
negatively affect the dispersibility of the oil. This suggests that an oil spill cannot be dosed in
relatively calm conditions with the expectation that the dispersant will remain with the oil and
become effective when sea states and mixing energies increase.
The surface of droplets generated from a slick treated with dispersant are initially Acoated@ with
surfactant molecules, oriented in such a way that coalescence between droplets is prevented when
droplets approach each other or collide. Also, freshly treated oil slicks and their dispersed droplets
tend not to stick to surfaces that untreated oil would normally stick to. Thus the oU is initially
prevented from wetting and adhering to bird feathers, beach sand, and the like. This is the theory. In
practice, because the surfactants are more soluble in water than oil, as noted above, and the
surfactants come into contact with much more water than oil during oceanic mixing, the surfactants
are probably lost to the water quickly.
Much is said in promotional literature on dispersants about the benefits of chemically dispersed oil
droplets not sticking to things and not coalescing with each other (thus reducing the oilts chances of
rising back to the surface). This probably only has benefits at the early stages of the dispersant-use
process. The truly important benefit of dispersing oil spills is the breakup of the mass of oil into
droplets and their subsequent dilution in the water column. The dmplets separate from each other so
quickly after entering the water column that contact between droplets becomes highly improbable; so
their tendency to coalesce or not upon contact is a non-issue.
The fact that chemical dispersants are lost to the water phase has one particularly good benefit: the
oil left on the surface, poorly dosed or not, reverts to a product that can either be treated again with
dispersants (S.L. Ross 1985) or mechanically recovered even with devices that rely on the principle
of oleophilicity [oil sticking to surfaces] (Strom-Kristiansen et al. 1996).
008961
2.3 Main Factors Influencing Dispersant Effectiveness

2.3.1 Definition of Dispersant Effectiveness
One of the most important questions to consider in assessing the feasibility of using dispersants on
GOMR spills is whether the spills will actually disperse when treated with chemical dispersant. Will
the spills treated with dispersant tend to break up and mix into the water column, or will they resist
the process and remain on the surface as a cohesive mass? If there is some dispersant effectiveness,
will it be high or low?
ADispersant effectiveness@ as defined here is a measure of how effective the application of dispersant
might be on a targeted part of a slick. It is not to be confused with dispersant Aoperational efficiency@
(discussed in Chapter 5) which relates to operational factors such as the availability of sufficient
stockpiles of chemicals, suitable and sufficient application platforms, a fast response capability, and
an intelligent application and monitoring program.
Also, Adispersant effectiveness@ as used here means the effectiveness ofthe dispersant under field
conditions, rather than laboratory conditions. Unfortunately, there is little quantitative information
on the effectiveness of dispersants when used in the field. Most quantitative information comes from
a number oflaboratory tests, which are poor simulators of dispersant"use in the field and of oceanic
mixing conditions. The five most popular laboratory tests today (Swirling Flask, Labofina, IFP,
MNS and Exdet B see Nordvik et al. 1993) have different designs and produce different results for
identical dispersant/oil combinations. The view among experts is that, although the results from any
laboratory test can be useful in providing relative values of dispersant effectiveness between
dispersant/oil combinations, they should not be trusted to predict absolute dispersant effectiveness
values in the field.
This leaves the resu Its of past field experiments as the main source of useful dispersant effectiveness
information. Unfortunately, there is a lack of good data in this arena as well. This is because (1)
there have been only a handful of open-ocean trials; and (2) there are no acceptable surface-sampling
or remote sensing methods available for measuring a spi1l=s overall thickness or volume on the
-23-
008962
ocean=s surface, and no acceptable methods for determining total volume of dispersed oil in the
water column. At least one of these measures is needed to quantitatively estimate oil dispersibility or
dispersant effectiveness in the field.
Despite these problems, oil spill experts are not hesitant to say that certain spills are likely to be
highly dispersible chemically and others are likely not to be. bt the former category are freshly
spilled, light to medium gravity oils in a medium wind condition or higher. bt the latter category are
spills of highly viscous oils and oils with very high pour points. The experts: confidence is based on
(1) knowledge about actual light-oil spills that naturally dispersed at sea; (2) the known resistance to
dispersion of highly viscous oil, spills even in rough sea conditions; (3) anecdotal and qualitative
information from actual spi II responses where dispersants were used; (4) dispersant field trials under
ideal conditions where chemical dispersants were clearly effective; and (5) many years of experience
in the laboratory with scores of oils and dozens of chemical products.
2.3.2 Simple Approach for Assessing Dispersant Effectiveness
On the basis of the above factors, oil spill experts at the International Tanker Owners Pollution
Federation in the mid-1980s developed a simple approach for estimating dispersant effectiveness.
The approach is based primarily on the fresh-oil density of the spilled oil (ITOPF 1987). This
variable was used in the correlation because, when a marine spill happens, the properties of the
spilled oil are usually not known except for the density of the oil or its API gravity. The ITOPF
approach has been used extensively by API (1986) and Regional Response Teams (RRTs) in the
U.S. (for example, see RRT Region IV FOSe Pre-Approved Dispersant Use Manual, January 10,
1995). Table 2-2 provides an indication of how the method works.
Ignoring the problem of high-pour-point oils for the moment, the table indicates that oils that have a
1
fresh-oil API gravity of 18 0 or greater should be chemically dispersible This method is intuitive
and is indeed very simple, but in any case only makes sense for predicting the dispersibility offresh,
API gravity of 18
Specific Gravity of 0.95
-24-
008963
Table 2-2 Oil Dispersibility as a Function of API Gravity and Pour Point
Dispersibility
Factor"
Oil Gravity and Pour Point
Oil Description
oVery light oil

oNo need to disperse
-Oil will dissipate rapidly
oLight oil
API Gravity 35_ 45
-Relatively non-persistent
-Easily dispersed
oLight Oil
API Gravity 35 0 _ 45 0
-Very
difficult to disperse if pour point
Fresh Oil Pour Point >40F
of fresh oil is greater than water temperature
API Gravity 17 0 _ 34 0
oMedium density oil .
"Fairly persistent
"Dispersible while fresh and unemulsified
oMedium Density Oil
34 0
API Gravity 1
oFairly persistent if pour point of fresh oil
Fresh Oil Pour Point >40oP
is less than water temperature
oNot dispersible if pour point of fresh oil
is greater than water temperature
oHeavy or very high pour-point oil
API Gravity less than 17 OR
Fresh Oil Pour Point greater than oVery difficult or impossible to disperse
75F
API Gravity over 45
2W
r-
3W
...
a. The lower the number the hIgher the dlsperslblhty

b. APT gravity = ([141.5/Specific Gravity] - 131.5), The higher the API gravity the lighter the oil.
unemulsified oil. The dispersibility of spilled oil after some weathering time on the surface is
another matter. As discussed earlier, when a crude oil is spilled it begins to evaporate immediately
and to emulsify with water. This emulsification greatly increases the oil:s viscosity and greatly
diminishes its dispersibility. Unfortunately, the rate of emulsification as a function of oil type and
weather factors is presently impossible or very difficult to predict accurately due to lack of
knowledge, and that is why the process must be monitored during a spill and why dispersant
effectiveness in the field can only truly be determined during the response itself.
In summary, predicting dispersant effectiveness in the field for a given oil spill situation is not an
easy and mechanical process; rather the process is inexact and based on a range of both objective and
subjective thinking. The following sections work their way through this thought process.
-25-
008964
2.3.3 Problems in Obtaining High Dispersant Effectiveness for Spills at Sea

It is known from a handful of experimental spills in the field that a non-viscous oil, when thoroughly
pre-mixed with dispersant, and spilled on the ocean under average sea conditions, is likely to
completely disperse from the surface and will do so relatively quickly compared with the same oil if
left untreated (Lichtenthaler and Daling 1985, Delvigne 1985, 1987, Fingas 1985, S0fstrem 1986).
This provides the strongest possible evidence that chemical dispersants have the potential for being
100 percent effective on spills at sea. There are problems in realizing this with actual spills, however.
This is because chemical addition to accidental marine spills takes place after the oil is on the surface
and not before, and achieving good contact and mixing between the applied dispersant and the oil is
very difficult at this stage. It is clear that applying the dispersant in the proper amounts, in the proper
way and at the proper time is crucial in ensuring that the chemical has an opportunity to do the job
that it is capable of doing.
Nichols and Parker (1985) and later Fingas (1985, 1988) analyzed the results of about a dozen field
trials that were conducted over a ten-year period to evaluate dispersant effectiveness. In these trials,
a total of 107 test spills were laid out including 23 control spil1s used to establish comparisons
(Fingas 1988). Dispersant effectiveness values that were reported numerically had an average of20
to 30 per cent. This value is not dismal by mechanical recovery standards, but one might wonder
why values were not higher considering that most experiments were designed to simulate best-case
conditions, including the use of unemulsified and relatively non-viscous oils. The main reason is that
the experiments with the poor results involved poor initial dispersant/oil contact and mixing and
quick loss ofthe dispersant to the water phase. (Here Amixingt means the mixing ofthe dispersant
with the oil, and not the mixing of the treated spill into the water column.) Some ofthe factors that
caused poor chemical/oil mixing were not known at the time, but are now, as discussed below.
/
Dosage Control
As discussed in Section 2.2.2 above, until the mid-1980s most specialists still considered that marine
oil spills spread uniformly and reached an average thickness of about 0.10 mm in several hours of
spreading. So, dispersant application systems and plans were designed to spray dispersant onto such
-26-
008965
slick thicknesses to achieve a dispersant-to-oil ratio of 1 in 20, and this is equivalent to about 5
gallons of dispersant for every acre of slick (0.10 mm thick). Today it is known that slicks invariably
are composed of a very thick portion in a relatively small area surrounding by a much larger area of
very thin sheen. It is clear that if the entire slick is sprayed uniformly, the thicker portion will be
vastly underdosed and the sheen greatly overdosed. This happened in most ofthe field trials noted
above. It certainly happened in a well-documented field trial that was conducted in Norway in 1985,
as discussed by Mackay (Mackay and Chau 1986, Chau and Mackay 1988) and summarized in Table
2-3.
Table 2-3 Illustration of Over-Under-Dosing for the 1984 Norwegian Experimental Spill I assuming
40 11m Diameter Dispersant Drops
Thick Slick
Sheen
Overall
Slick Volume (m3)
9.72
.28
10
Slick Area (ml)
4510
27,690
322,200
Slick Thickness (mm)
2.16
0.01
.3]
. Fractional Areas
0.14
0.86
Dispersant Applied (m )
0.133
0:3] 1
Dispersant Fractions Applied
0.3
0.7
Oil to Dispersant Ratio
73.0
.89
.444
22.5
1. Reference: Llchtenthaler and Dahng 1985

Source of Table: Mackay and Chau 1986 (also in Chau and Mackay 1988)
Notice that the dispersant-to-oil ratio for the thick portion of oil (representing the vast majority of oil
spill volume) was only 1 in 73. This is much less than the recommended 1 in 20. Therefore, the
results of the trial were bound to be less than ideal. On the other hand, the dispersant-to-oil ratio for
the sheen was almost 1 in 1, representing an excessive dosage and waste of product for so little oil.
Many contingency plans, field guides and decision systems (e.g., Allen and Dale 1995) still consider
spills to have uniform thickness, and dispersant spraying plans are based on this wrong assumption.
-27-
008966
Oil Viscosity and Water-in-Oil Emulsification
Much work has been done to evaluate dispersant effectiveness as a function of oil type and condition
(see, for example, Fingas et al. 1994, 1995a, 1995b). The singular most important factor that causes
poor dispersant effectiveness in the field seems to be the viscosity ofthe spilled product at the time
the chemical is applied; ifthe viscosity is extremely high, the dispersant will not penetrate and mix
with the mass of oil. The applied chemical will simply "roll off" the oil and be lost to the water
phase.
For spilled oils that are highly viscous to begin with, such as heavy bunker oils and extremely heavy
and viscous crude oils, it is has been understood for some time that attempts at chemically dispersing
the spill will prove futile. Not as well understood is the process of water-in-oil emulsification and its
effects on dispersant effectiveness. Almost all crude oils emulsify and become viscous, and the
evidence seems to suggest that the process can start early in a spill:s history and, once started, can
proceed rapidly (Bobra 1990, 1991). The process is responsible for the largest hindrance to effective
dispersant-use of any process or any factor. The effect is shown in Figure 2-3a and Figure 2-3b, both
of which show the drop in dispersant effectiveness as the oil viscosity increases by virtue of
evaporation and emulsification (noted in Figure 2-3a by the letter "W", which represents the
percentage of water in the emulsion). Notice that in the cases shown, dispersant effectiveness drops
sharply as the viscosity increases and becomes almost zero when the viscosity increases beyond
1000 to 10,000 cPo It is important to note the difference due to oil type and, as mentioned earlier, that
newer dispersant products on the market, such as Corexit 9500, may be effective at higher viscosities
than noted here.
It should perhaps also be noted that results of studies done to evaluate viscosity effects (for example,
Martinelli and Cormack 1979, Martinelli and Lynch 1980, Bocard et al. 1984, Bocard and Castaing
1986, Desmarquest et at. 1985, DaJing and Brandvik 1991) have shown only a weak correlation, if
any, between dispersant effectiveness and viscosity when the viscosity is generally low, say in the 1
to 100 cP range. In fact, most studies show that the dispersant effectiveness is lower for oils with
very low viscosity compared to oils with medium viscosity up to about 100 cP, and then decreases
dramatically thereafter (Daling and Brandvik 1991).
-28-
008967
Figure 2-3a Effect of Viscosity on Dispersant Effectiveness (after Daling 1986)
100 ~--------------------------------------------------~
IFPTest
Finasol OSR-5, DOR = 1:25
Temperature 13C
80
---_...... ....
--
"""-
" .........
-- -- --- ....... _-- ...

Gulfaks Crude
\
\
\
\
\
20
increasing evaporation and emulsification
o
10
1000
100
.... .....
.....
10000
Viscosity. cP
Figure 2-3b Effect of Viscosity on Dispersant Effectiveness (after Daling and Brandvik1991)
-29-
008968
Finally, it should be noted that, although the emulsification process has been studied intensively (for
example, see Fingas et al. 1995, 1996 and 1997) and is fairly well understood in general terms, how
the process proceeds for specific oils is poorly understood; hence, predictions and modeling of the
process become a very difficult matter.
Herding and Dispersant Drop Size
The phenomenon of slick Aherding@ has been recognized for many years and, yet, in most dispersantuse plans that exist in the U.S., it is not emphasized as a problem to avoid during the application of
dispersant and to be aware of during the monitoring phase of operations. Dispersants, by their nature,
have a higher spreading force than does oil. This means that a thin slick of oil surrounded by a layer
of dispersant will be herded into a narrow ribbon of oil. This will happen if the dispersant misses its
target of oil and falls on the water in proximity to the oil. As viewed from the air, the ribbons of oil
thus formed are barely visible, so the operations looks as if the dispersant was very effective in
clearing oil offthe surface. The water will continue to look clear until the dispersant on the surface is
naturally mixed into the water phase, and the oil re-spreads on the surface. This might take about 15
minutes (Fingas 1985). This herding phenomenon has fooled observers into thinking that the
dispersant has worked, whereas the opposite has occurred. One indication that dispersants are
working is seeing the coffee-colored cloud of dispersed oil in the water column. Lunel (I 994a, 1995)
has indicated, however, that dispersion can occur without the appearance of such a cloud.
Another way herding occurs is if applied dispersant droplets crash through the slick to the underlying
water surface and start herding the oil at that time. This will happen if the dispersant droplets are
much larger than the slick thickness. For example, if the dispersant droplet has a diameter of, say,
0.50 mm and the slick thickness is 0.10 mm, the dispersant drop wil11ikely break through the slick
and cause it to herd (Chau and Mackay 1988). This is problem enough, but the worst of it is that the
first few droplets of a dispersant application will immediately and greatly reduce the area of oil slick
and increase the water surface area so that subsequently falling droplets will miss the oil entirely, fall
on water, and gradually enter the water column. This problem can be avoided by ensuring that the
dispersant droplets are always smaller than the thickness of the targeted oil.
-30-
008969
There are limits to the droplet size, however, because dispersant droplets having diameters smaller
than about 0.2 mm are easily lost to the atmosphere through drift (for example, a 0.10 mm droplet
falling through a height of 30 feet in a 15 knot wind will drift about 1000 feet). Because of this
problem of drift, the recommended dispersant drop size for applying dispersant from either aircraft
or work boats is in the vi~inity of 500,....m (0.5 mm) (Gill 1981, Mackay et aL 1980b, 1981).
This leads to the conclusion that only relatively thick slicks ( 0.5 mm) should be targets for
dispersant treatment. This is usually not a serious problem because the thick portions of oil spills are
usually in the range of a millimeter, or even much more if the response is rapid. For smaller spills
where the thicknesses are less, herding will likely be a problem. Herding was certainly a major
problem in several of the above-noted field experiments conducted in the 1980s when thick-thin
spreading and the problem of herding were not well appreciated. These dispersant-effectiveness
experiments were predestined to fail because the experimental slicks were intentionally designed to
be very thin (in the 0.1 mm range).
Sea Energy
Sea energy is of obvious importance to the dispersion of marine oil spills: simply put, the more
mixing the better (Fingas et a1. 1992, 1993). This nicely complements the other two approaches to
marine oil spill control, mechanical recovery and in situ burning, both of which work best under
calm conditions. It is generally believed (with little evidence) that not much sea energy is needed to
effect chemically-induced dispersion if the oil spill is properly dosed. This is because the dispersant
greatly reduces the interfacial tension between the oil and water, meaning that very little energy is
required to mix the oil into the sea. Some dispersant-use proponents suggest that dispersants should
be applied to spills even in calm conditions because the oil will be inhibited from forming an
emulsion and will be ready to be dispersed when the weather turns worse, during which time it may
be much more difficult and even impossible to treat the spill properly. There is merit to this idea, but
more study is needed to determine how quickly the dispersant might leach out of the oil and into the
water during such periods of calm.
-31-
008970
Dispersant Type - Corexit 9527 versus Corexit 9500
There are many products on the market that claim to be effective oil spill dispersants, but most have
been shown to be relatively ineffective in laboratory tests and, in any case, are not available in large
quantities on an emergency basis. Within the U.S. only dispersants that are listed on the EPA
National Contingency Plan Product Schedule can be legal1y sprayed. (See Section 5.2.2 for a list of
approved chemicals.) Ofthe products on the list only Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500 are stockpiled
in large quantity. Corexit 9527 was one of the first of the modern concentrate dispersants to be
developed and has been available for more than 25 years. Recently,- a new product has been
developed to replace Corexit 9527. It is called Corexit 9500. According to the manufacturer, Corexit
9500 contains the same surfactant chemicals in the same amounts as in its forerunner, but the watermiscible, glycol-based carrier in Corexit 9527 has been replaced by a low-toxicity, hydrocarbon
carrier. The product was reformulated for two reasons. First, the more oJeophilic solvent enhances
the penetration of the dispersant into heavier, more viscous oils. Second, the new solvent in Corexit
9500 allows the product to be used with a lower level of personal protective equipment. A
component of the solvent phase of Corexit 9527, namely 2-butoxyethylene, obliges dispersant
workers to wear protectiveciothing and respiratory protection gear, which proved cumbersome in
tropical climates. The newer product does not require these protective items.
There is a growing body of information suggesting that Corexit 9500 is generally more effective than
Corexit 9527. Figure 2-4 summarizes the results oflaboratory tests, in which the effectiveness of
Corexit 9500 was compared to that of Corexit 9527 against a broad range of crude oils using the
Swirling Flask Test (see details oftest in Nordvik et al. 1993). In the figure, Corexit 9527 and 9500
have equal effectiveness for oils whose results fall on the Ixl line. Corexit 9500 is more effective
than Corexit 9527 for all points above the lxlline; the opposite is true for points below the line. It is
seen that Corexit 9500 tends to yield generally higher indices of effectiveness than Corexit 9527 for
the same type of crude oil. These results, produced by Environment Canada at the Emergencies
Science Division (ESD) Laboratory in Ottawa are similar to those produced by Blondina et al. in
California using a modified version of the Swirling Flask Test (Blondina et al. 1999). Of the 31
experiments in which Blondina et al. tested Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500 at the same salinity on
the same oil, Corexit 9500 was more effective than Corexit 9527 in about 75 % of the cases.
-32-
008971
60
50
Ul
Ul
1&.1
1&.1
40
>
~
~
I.JJ J 0
0
0
10
Ol
t-
><
20
It!
0
U
10
G FlASK TEST IE UIlS II'OM ENVIID, M ENTCANADA LI RlRlIM. FINGAS -PElS, COM M. )
SWI
10
30
20
40
50
60
COfXIT9527 EffEClIVENESS
Figure 2-4 Comparison of Corexit 9500 to Corexit 9527
Metbod of Application: Neat versus Water-Diluted Dispersant
In the early days of dispersant use, dispersants were applied from vessels equipped with spray gear.
The dispersant was diluted with water prior to spraying (usually in a concentration of about 1 part
dispersant to 10 parts water) in order to produce the right drop size for treating thin slicks. In
operations today aircraft apply the dispersant in undiluted form. Recently, however, an interest has
developed in using ship-based systems again (Major et al. 1993, 1994; Major and Chen 1995; Lune)
et al [995; Ross 1998; Chen 1999). There are two approaches: the first is to use a separate system for
applying dispersant in neat form and the second is to use a standard fire monitor system in which the
dispersant is educted into the main water flow to deliver the dispersant in the form of diluted
droplets. Recent test-tank work (SL Ross, 2000) with Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500 on one oil
(Alaska North Slope(ANS) crude) seems to indicate that the effectiveness Corexit 9527 is similar if
the dispersant is applied in neat form or diluted form (both with the same dispersant-to-oil ratio), but
-33-
008972
that the effectiveness of Corexit 9500 is diminished when applied in diluted form. The results
suggest that Corexit 9500 should not be pre-mixed with water prior to application, as would be the
case when using conventional fire monitor systems. At the time of writing further research is
proceeding to determine if the results with ANS crude apply to other oils as well (SL Ross in .
progress) .
Temperature
There is a general misconception that temperature, per se, is a general problem in dispersant
effectiveness, and that dispersants should not or can not be used in cold climates. This is not true.
Temperature simply increases the viscosity of the spiUed oi1. The viscosity of the spilled oil will
become higher at low temperatures, but perhaps not too high for effective chemical dispersion (Ross
2000). In any case, none of this has serious relevance to the Gulf of Mexico situation.
Salinity
Blondina et at. (1999) were the first to make a thorough study ofthe effectiveness of Corexit 9500
relative to that of Corexit 9527 over a range of water salinities. They measured the effectiveness of
the two dispersants against nine crude oils and Bunker C at a range of salinities using a modified
Swirling Flask Test procedure. They found that Corexit 9500 was significantly more effective than
Corexit 9527 on most oils at most salinities, although in a few cases the opposite was true. Both
products showed the greatest effectiveness at higher salinities and were less effective at low
salinities. In general, however, Corexit 9500 maintained a higher level of effectiveness over a wider
range of salinities. Results for four oils are shown in Figure 2-5 (after Blondina et al. 1999).
-34-
008973
Forcados Crude Oil

70
60
50
40
30
til
til
~w
e60
........
.....
:50
~4O
~3O
t;20
:jg 10
W 0
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Arabian Ught Crude Oil
..... 70
..
0
40
SalinHy (ppt)
30
t;20
J!! 10
...
III 30
>
t; 20
:jg 10
W
0
.......
~
'---'---'l:__-'----'-__'-----'---1.----l
10
30
35
40
~50
XI 40
c
o--!r.
.
...........................
.
15 20 25
Salinity (ppt)
".
I/)
~4O
........
m~------------------~
,-------------------~
11150
....... .
Arabian Medium Crude Oil
PrUdhoe Bay Crude Oil

_70
~m
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
i
1
Salinity (ppt)
10 15 20
25
30
35 40
Salinity (ppt)
I ... Corexit 9527 -IJ- Corexit 9500 1

Figure 2-5 Mean Effectiveness of Corexit 9527 and 9500 on Four Crude Oils
2.4 European Field Experience with Dispersants in the 1990s

Most of what is discussed above on dispersant effectiveness is based on laboratory and test-tank
studies. However interesting these studies may be, the ultimate question remains: How effective are
dispersants when used in the field under real spill conditions? This nagging question started to
produce good answers following results from experimental spills in Europe from 1991 to 1995 and
from activities at the Sea Empress tanker spill off Wales in 1995. The scientists involved made
breakthroughs in measuring dispersant effectiveness in the field more exactly than ever before.
Although these spills involved oils other than those produced in the Gulf of Mexico and several
dispersant products not available in the U.S., the results of are ofimportance to the present study and
-35~
008974
are summarized below. The experimental spills are discussed first and the Sea Empress is discussed
second.
Several ofthe field trials involved experiments with so-called "demulsifiers" or "emulsion breakers"
These class of chemicals are designed to "break" emulsions, that is, to cause water droplets in an
emulsion to coalesce and separate from the oil; the effect produces a sharp decrease in spill viscosity.
The main attraction of demulsifiers at one time (SL Ross 1985, Walker and Lunel 1995) was the idea
that they could be used as the first step in a dispersant operation, not to disperse the oil but to "buy
time" and keep the oil from emulsifying and becoming too viscous for subsequent treatment with
chemical dispersion. Interest in the idea dropped considerably when it was realized that present-day
dispersant products already exhibit strong demulsifying properties, as suggested below in the review
of one of the field experiments.
For a much more detailed review and discussion of all the European offshore experiments trials, see
SL Ross (1997b).
2.4.1 Experimental Spills

Seven trials took place during the period of 1991 to 1995, each involving either several large spills in
the size range of 10m3 to 20 m3 (63 barrels to 126 barrels) or continuous discharges with flowrates
of25 to 50 L per minute (6.6 to 13.2 gallons per minute). The first two trials involved emulsion
breakers exclusively and are not reviewed here (for details on these see McDonagh and ColcombHeiliger 1992, Lunel and Lewis 1993a and Lunel 1993). The main features and results ofthe
remaining five experiments are now discussed chronologically.
Spraying of Dispersant, September 1993, North Sea off U.K.

Two 20-tonne slicks ofa 50:50 mixture of Marine Fuel Oil (MFO) and Oas Oil (00) were released
at sea (Lunel 1994a). One of the slicks acted as the control while the other was sprayed with
dispersant Dasic Slickgone NS (with a DOR of 1: 10) The wind speed during the experiment varied
-36-
008975
between 5 and 10 m/s. Although no attempt was made after the trial to estimate dispersant
effectiveness quantitatively, the following results were found:
The remote sensing imagery indicated that the treated slick dissipated after 8 to 9 hours;
Surface sampling ofthe emulsion indicated that there was a reduction in water content and
viscosity immediately following treatment with dispersant, and this was consistent with the
rapid spreading ofthe treated slick observed by the remote sensing over the same period of
time; and
Monitoring ofthe subsurface oil concentrations of the control and treated slick showed that
at all times the volume of oil dispersed below the treated slick was as much as 16 times
greater than below the untreated slick.
Spraying of Demulsifier and Dispersant, August 1994, Nortb Sea off U.K.
In August, 1994, two large (15 m 3) experimental oil slicks were released in the North Sea in winds
averaging 5m1sec (Walker and Lunel 1995). After weathering for about 25 hours, each was sprayed
with a 400 L demulsifier solution from an aircraft; one hour later one ofthe slicks was sprayed with
2000 L of dispersant.
The thick and thin parts of each spill were determined as a function of time using IR imagery.
Continuous flow fluorometry was used to determine the concentration of oil at various depths
beneath the slicks, both before and after spraying operations.
The results showed that the water content of the both spills dropped from between 60 and 65%
before spraying to between 40 and 50% after the demulsifier application. For the first spill these
levels did not reduce over the next 6 to 7 hours. For the second spill, after the dispersant had been
applied, the water content dropped significantly to between 10 and 20%, and remained constant until
sampling ceased. This suggests that the dispersant was causing demulsification. Such behavior has
been noted and has been attributed to similar chemicals used in both demulsifiers and dispersants
-37-
008976
before (Lewis et al. 1994, 1995a, 1995b; Lunel 1995; Lunel and Lewis 1993a, 1993b; Lunel et al.
1997; Walker and Lunel 1995).
In terms of the sub-surface oil concentrations, the study showed that the combined demulsifier I
dispersant operation resulted in a five- to 10-fold increase in volumes of oil dispersed compared to
an untreated slick, but not the IS- to 30-fold increases observed in other trials (Lunel 1994b) when
dispersant was used alone. This suggested that the demulsifier was somehow inhibiting the potential
of the dispersant, but this was left open to question.
Spraying of Demulsifier and Dispersant, June 1994, North Sea off Norway
An offshore sea trial involving two spills, each containing 20 m3, was carried out in the Norwegian
sector of the North Sea in June 1994. The main purpose was to study the weathering behavior of
Sture Blend crude oil and to study the effects and operational factors involved in the aerial
application of dispersant. The following are the results from the trial as abstracted from two separate
research papers on the experiment (Lewis et al. 1995a, Walker and Lunel 1995).
Water-in-oj I (w10) emulsification of Sture Blend crude oi I began almost immediately when
the oil was discharged on to the sea surface. The water content of the wlo emulsion was
5S% (by volume) IS minutes after discharge. Initially, the emulsion was very unstable and
rapidly broke down to its oil and water components when removed from the sea surface
and allowed to stand in static conditions.
The distribution of oil residue and wlo emulsion within the total area of an oil slick was
very uneven. The majority ofthe volume of oil was contained within a very small fraction
of the total area. In less than perfect viewing conditions, it was very difficult to visually
identifY the thickest areas. Aerial lRIUV remote sensing techniques were very useful in
identifYing these areas.
Dispersant treatment at low dose rates, estimated as 1:300 to 1:700 (dispersant to emulsion)
in the thicker emulsion areas of the slick de-stabilized the emulsion that had been formed
-38-
008977
and led to increased oil spreading and an enhanced rate of natural dispersion. Dispersion
occurred when the oil residue was at a temperature 5 to 15C o lower than its pour point,
indicating that pour point is not a good indicator of the feasibility of using dispersants.
In contrast to some previously reported chemical dispersion field trials (Lichtenthaler and
Dating 1985), the dispersion process was relatively slow, but the rate of dispersion was
significantly enhanced compared to that of the control slick. The enhanced rate of
dispersion persisted and it took several hours to remove all of the oil from the surface. Slow
and continuous dispersion has also been observed in some previous field trials (Bocard et
al. 1987 and Lunel 1994a). The dispersant treated slick was totally removed from the
surface about 4 hours after the second treatment, while the control slick persisted for a total
of 30 hours, after which it was treated with dispersant.
Based on the measured oil concentration in the water depth down to 5 meters under both
slicks, the enhanced dispersion rate for the slick treated with a low dosage of Corexit 9500
can be estimated to be approximately ten times higher than for the untreated slick.
Spraying Dispersant on Steady-State Discharges, 1993, 1994, 1995, U.K.
Lune) (1994a) explains the problems of using batch spills for dispersant effectiveness trials at sea,
and proposes that the best solution is to use a continuous, steady-state discharge so that replicate
measurements canbe made for both surface oil properties and oil concentrations in the water
column. In the set-up, used for field experiments in 1993, 1994 and 1995, a discharge vessel, moored
in a tidal current, releases oil at a constant rate laying a carpet of oil approximately 1 meter wide and
1 mm thick. The surface oil and the subsurface dispersed plume is carried downstream by the tide.
The oil is then treated with dispersant over the entire width of the carpet of oil using spray
equipment mounted 2 meters further downstream. A sampling vessel is used to cross the steady-state
plume at a point downstream of the discharge vessel to obtain subsurface oil concentrations. After
making one transect, the sampling vessel can turn around and repeatthe transect at the same distance
downstream, again and again. In this way replicate samples are collected, and the four-dimensional
-39-
008978
problem normally encountered with batch spill experiments is converted to a two dimensional
process by fixing the time after treatment and the spreading along the tidal axis.
Some ofthe dispersant effectiveness results of the studies are presented in Table 2-4. These apply to
a wind regime of 6 to 10 m/s. Also shown are the relative rates of dispersion for the various
combinations. This is possible since the rates of oil dispersion into the water column were at steady
state for the first 30 minutes after treatment using the continuous release experimental technique. It
is seen that when the medium Fuel Oil was treated with the dispersant OSR-5, the oil dispersed ten
times faster than the same oil untreated.
Table 2-4 Percentage Dispersed and Relative Rate of Dispersion

Oil-Dispersant
Percentage Dispersed
Relative Rate
MFO-OSR-5
30
10
MFO-Corexit 9527
26
MFO-Slickgone NS
17
MFO-Control
Forties-Slickgone NS
16
Forties-Control
The three major conclusions from these studies by Lunel et al. are that:
1. There is a clear ranking in the percentage of oil that different dispersants will disperse in the
field. Although this ranking has been well documented for laboratory tests this is the first set of
field data where this ranking has been quantified;
2. Dispersant type is the most significant factor affecting the percentage of dispersed oil, but
smaller differences do exist for the two different oil types;
3. The tested dispersants increased the rate of dispersion by six- to 10-fold compared with natural
dispersion in the case ofMFO and three-fold in the case of Forties (Forties was not tested in the
field with Corexit 9527 or OSR-5).
40-
008979
In the experiments conducted by Lunel et al. in July 1995 the MFO-GO emulsion that was initially
discharged had a water content of 60% and a viscosity of about 2000 cPo In the absence of treatment
the viscosity of the emulsion on the sea surface rose to 3540 cPo However, treatment with the
dispersant product Corexit 9500 not only prevented this increase in emulsion viscosity but also broke
the emulsion. One sample collected had a viscosity of 650 cP at lOs"l.
Thus, in addition to the loss of surface oil due to the dispersion effects of the chemical dispersant,
there is an emulsion-breaking effect which results in a low viscosity emulsion that can spread on the
sea surface and disperse "naturally" over time. These combined effects reduce the persistence of the
emulsion on the sea surface. This is illustrated in figures provided in the ]996 Lunel paper.
2.4.2 Sea Empress Spill in 1995

Activities and Observations
On February 15, 1995 the tanker Sea Empress grounded at the mouth of Milford Haven, Wales,
spilling 72,000 tonnes (19 million gallons) of Forties Blend crude oil and 370 tonnes of Heavy Fuel
Oil. This spill is of particular interest because a major component of the response to the spill
involved the application of dispersants. Semi-quantification of the effectiveness of the dispersant
operations was made possible through a monitoring program mobilized at the initial stages of the
response and subsequently carried out by the National Environmental Technology Centre
(NETCEN) of AEA Technology (Lunel et al. 1997). The decision making at the incident was aided
by the fact that the spilled crude oil, Forties Blend, has been used extensively in field trials in the
North Sea. As noted earlier, these field trials showed that (1) Forties Blend forms emulsions readily
and that in the absence of treatment these emulsions can be relatively persistent; and (2) Forties
Blend tends to be amenable to treatment both by dispersants and demulsifiers.
In response to the grounding, the UK national contingency plan was activated 'and two surveillance
aircraft, equipped with Side-Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) and downward-looking Video, JR, and
UV cameras, were deployed to fly over the vessel to estimate the extent of the spill. Seven DC3
dispersant aircraft were loaded with dispersant and flown to the scene in readiness to begin spraying
-41-
008980
operations at first Iight, if required. Predictions of where the major areas of oil contamination were to
move and the likely weathering state of the oil were provided by an oil spill model used by the
national government. The combination of remote sensing and predictive modeling was used
throughout the incident to help plan response operations.
The bulk of the 72,000 tonnes of Forties Blend crude oil was released over the 4-day period from
12:00, 18 February to 18:00, 21 st February. Table 2-5 provides a rough estimate ofthe volumes of
th
oil released and the timing and amounts of dispersant application.
The dispersants used in decreasing order of volume sprayed were: Finasol OSR-51, Dasic LTSW,
Dasic Slickgone NS, Dispolene 34S, Superdispersant25, Enersperse 1583, and Corexit 9500. It was
not possible to gather data at the spill on the relative effectiveness of the different dispersants.
Around 400 tonnes were applied using the DC3 spray aircraft. This operation was supplemented on
February 21 and 22 by an ADDS-pack system from OSRL (Oil Spill Response Limited) which
applied approximately 45 tonnes of dispersant.
Table 2-5 Estimates of Oil Volumes Discharged and Dispersant Used at the Sea Empress Spill
Date
(February)
15
16
17
18
18
19
19
20
21
21
Time
(GMT)
20:00 - 22:00
20:00 - 23:00
~v.vv 13:00
21:00 - 24:00
10:00 - 13:00
22:00 - 01 :00
10:00 - 13:00
00:00 - 02:00
11 :00 - 14:00
TOTAL
Source: Lunel et al. 1997
Estimate of oil
released (tonnes)
Date
(February )
Dispersant
application
(tonnes)
2,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
8,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
16
17
18
2
2(+2demulsifier)
29 (+6 Demulsifier)
19
57
20
21
110
179
22
I TOTAL
72,000
67
446 (+8 Demu\sifier)
According to Lunel (1997) a notable feature of the spray response was the effective targeting
achieved by the use of remote sensing aircraft positioned above the spray aircraft to direct the spray
-42-
008981
pattern. This operation is weB tried and practiced in the UK and allowed the DC3 aircraft in
particular to hit ribbons of oil as narrow as 10 to 20 m.
The response on 16 February was mainly restricted to at sea recovery operations inside the Haven as
the majority of the oil slick was close to shore and in shallow waters which prohibited the use of
dispersants. One test spray of dispersant (2 tonnes) was carried out at 14:20 on 16 February. As a
result ofvisual observations from the remote sensing aircraft it was reported that the dispersant were
not being effective in dispersing the surface on, and subsequent sampling ofthe surface oil carried
out from a surface vessel showed indeed that the oil had started to emulsifY.
On the basis of the results from small test sprays on the 17th, and because of previous success in
field trials with demulsifiers and dispersants on emulsions of Forties, permission was given for a
~arger
area to be sprayed with 2 tonnes of dispersant and two tonnes of demulsifier. After the
application at 09:08, the remote sensing aircraft reported that the oil was turning a milky color, but
not dispersing as fast as had been expected. At this time, relatively small patches of emulsion (20 to
30 tonnes) were being driven out to sea and were breaking up. It was therefore decided that further
spraying was not required at this stage.
On 18 February, there was another release of oil, estimated at 2,000 tonnes, between 10:00 and
13:00. A trial spray was carried out at 10:20 and at 10:59 the remote sensing aircraft reported thatthe
spray had been successful and permission was given for full scale spraying. Throughout the incident,
application of dispersant to the freshly released Forties Blend was highly effective and resulted in
clearly visible plumes of dispersed oil.
Between 19-22 February the dispersant application and monitoring of the dispersed oil
concentrations were coordinated to give an indication ofthe effectiveness of the dispersant in realtime. Flow-through-fluorometry techniques, developed for the field experiments discussed above,
indicated that the dispersant operation was enhancing the rate of natural dispersion for the freshlyreleased oil and even for the weathered oil.
On the evening of 18 February there was a new release of oil at low water between 22:00 and 24:00,
the size of the release is estimated at 5,000 tonnes. This was followed at low water on the 19
43-
008982
February, by a large release of oil, estimated at 8,000 tonnes, between 10:00 and 13 :00. At 09:01
permission was sought and granted to begin spraying. All seven DC3 spraying aircraft were
deployed untH operations finished at approximately 15:50.
As expected, the dispersants were most effective on the oil just emerging from the grounded tanker.
Therefore, the priority targets for dispersant application were slicks of this freshly spilled oil. Once
these had been successfully treated with dispersant, larger patches of more weathered oil further
offshore were then approached. These patches probably resulted from oil released at low tide during
darkness, and thus escaped immediate treatment.
As emphasized by Lunel et al. (1997) the strategy used generally in the UK for applying dispersant,
and the strategy used at the Sea Empress spill, is for remote sensing planes to direct spray aircraft to
areas of thickest oil and for the spray aircraft to repeatedly pass over the region of thickest oil until
the surface oil has been dispersed. The limits for dispersant-to-oil ratio (DOR) are set by an estimate
of the volume dispersant required to treat the volume of surface oil, rather than trying to set an
average application of, say, 5 to 10 gal10ns per acre, based on an estimate of the average thickness of
the slick. In reality, for a major spill such as the Sea Empress, logistical limitations mean that it is
unlikely that the optimum dosage of 1:20 will ever be exceeded. Lunel provides an example to
explain the reasoning behind this strategy, as follows. The estimated 8,000 tonnes of oil released on
19 February was treated with 57 tonnes of dispersant. Assuming that 30% of the oH evaporated
within the first 2 hours, this translates to a DOR of 57 : 5,600 or 1 : 100. Given the uncertainty in
volumes of oil released, Lunel estimates that the actual dispersant to oil ratio was between 1:50 and
1: 150. Even at this very low dose rate the dispersant resulted in an effective dispersion; little of the
surface oil that had been released between 10:00 and 13 :00 remained when the dispersant operation
was stopped at 15:50.
Lunel summarizes the NETCEN reports between 19-22 February as follows:
Fluorometry showed that natural dispersion ofthe fresh oil was taking place when the oil
was first released from the Sea Empress. For example, on 20 February typical
concentrations at 1 m were 3 ppm (with localized maxima up to 10 ppm). However
-44-
008983
concentrations measured further down in the water column at 4 to 5 m depth were typically
less than 0.5 ppm. This trend of high oil concentrations near the sea surface with Iittle depth
penetration is typical of the natural dispersion process (Lunel 1994a, Lune11995, Lewis et
al. 1995, Brandvik et al. 1995). The oil concentration gradient with depth indicates that, in
the prevailing 30 to 40 knot winds, oil was being transported into the water column as large
Asuspended droplets@ which rise back to the surface to reform a surface slick. Certainly
before the commencement ofthe spraying operation on the 20 February the surface slick of
fresh oil close to the tanker was millimeters thick.
The dispersant spraying operation substantially increased the concentration ofdispersed oil,
penetrating to 4 m. This, combined with the dramatic reduction ofthe volume of surface
oil, showed that the dispersant operation was successful when applied to the fresh oil being
released from the Sea Empress. By way of illustration, on the 20 February oil
concentrations at 4 to 5m depth were elevated to 3 ppm immediately following the
application of dispersant. After the dispersant application these levels of 3 ppm were
uni formly mixed over the entire depth range of measurement (surface to 5 m). This feature
of elevated oil concentrations being measured through a depth greater than is observed for
natural dispersion is again consistent with field trials carried out on dispersant effectiveness
using Forties Blend crude oil (Lunel and Lewis 1993a, Walker and LuneI1995).
Once the Forties oil had emulsified the natural dispersion process slowed down
significantly. For example, the oil concentrations measured on 21 February at both 1 m and
4 m were well below 1 ppm under the weathered oil slick.
The first application of dispersant to the emulsions tended to break the emulsion while
subsequent additions increased the concentrations of dispersed oil. This was consistent with
previous trials in the North Sea with Forties when the dispersant operation was successful
in breaking the water-in-oil emulsion and then dispersing it.
Lunel advises that it is important to recognize that while remote sensing in the absence of oil
concentration measurements cannot provide a clear picture ofthe effectiveness of dispersant, neither
-45-
008984
can oil concentration measurements in the absence of remote sensing reveal the whole picture. Part
of a successful operation is the judgement of when to stop treating a particular patch of oil. In the
case ofthe fresh oil emerging from the Sea Empress, the situation was clear: the oil was basically a
coherent surface slick, and dispersant operations reduced its thickness until only sheens remained. In
the case of the weathered oil, the main problem, identified through remote sensing, was the
patchiness and low surface coverage of emulsion (Le., around 30% coverage of the water surface).
This low coverage meant that, even though there was a significant volume of emulsion remaining at
sea, it was not possible to achieve efficient application of the dispersant. When this point was
reached in the response to a given patch of oil, the dispersant operation- was terminated.
Oil Budget
About 59,000 tonnes of Forties crude oil cargo was transferred to the Texaco refinery once the Sea
Empress had been brought alongside a jetty in Milford Haven. The oil budget considered here,
therefore, refers to the 72,000 tonnes of Forties crude which was spilt at sea. The majority ofthe 370
tonnes ofHFO impacted the shoreline in and around Milford Haven.
Lunel suggests an overall oil budget on the 29 February (when beach cleanup operations had
removed the majority of the bulk oil from accessible sites) as shown in Table 2-6. The assumptions
and calculations made in assembling the table are described below:
Table 2-6 Proposed Oil Budget for the Sea Empress Spill
Recovered at sea
Impacting the shoreline
Evaporated
Dispersed
Considering dispersant
operation
deployed at the Sea Empress
3%
7%
Estimate in the absence

of dispersant use
40%
50%
40%
10%
10%
40%
Oil recovered at sea - 3%: Approximately 4,000 tonnes of water-in-oil emulsion, with an average
water content of 50% was removed at sea by skimming operations. This accounts for 3% ofthe oil.
The wind speeds were above 30 knots for much of the initial stages of the response. This puts into
-46-
008985
context the 3% ofthe oil recovered by mechanical recovery, when previous experience indicates that
10% recovery is the best that can be achieved for spills ofthis magnitude (Scientific 1995). The best
conditions for skimming operations were on 21 & 22 February and 25 & 26 when wind speeds were
below 10 knots, the upper limit for effective mechanical recovery operations. On the 21 & 22
February the dispersant and mechanical recovery operations were often operating in the same part of
the slick. The mechanical recovery teams did not report any loss of efficiency in the skimming
operation as a result of dispersant use. On this basis, Lunel hopes that this incident will Adispel the
myth that dispersant use and mechanical recovery are mutually incompatible.@
Oil impacting the shoreline - 7%: Lunel presents substantial detail defending this number with
reference to sampling programs and surveys during the spill, and the like. This is not presented here.
In any case, it is noted that, of the 72,000 tonnes, only about 2% was recovered from the shoreline
(2,500 tonnes ofliquid emulsion of20% oil reprocessed at the refinery; 3,500 tonnes of oiled waste
at 10% to landfarm; 7,800 tonnes of oiled sand at 5% oil to landfarm).
Evaporation - 40%: Forties Blend oil is a relatively Alight@ North Sea crude oil, and 40 to 45% is
estimated to have evaporated up to the period of29 February. This was the prediction of an oil spill
model that has been extensively calibrated against experimental oil spills in the North Sea, a large
number of which involved Forties Blend. Due to the rough sea conditions and the emphasis on
measurements of dispersed oil concentrations, only 8 surface emulsion samples were taken at sea.
The evaporative loss of all these samples, which represent between 6 and 24 hours after release, was
between 35% and 45%.
Dispersion - by difference = 50%: Fluorometry measurements at sea suggested dispersant

application to be successful particularly when applied to the fresh oil being released near the Sea
Empress. But it is impossible to determine volume of oil dispersed by such measurements; it must be
deduced. Thus, if 40% ofthe spill was evaporated, 3% was recovered at sea, and 7% impacted the
shoreline, then by difference 50% of the oil is likely to have dispersed.
Lunel thus believes that, if dispersants had not been used at the Sea Empress incident, 72,000 to
120,000 tonnes of emulsion would have impacted the south Wales coastline, instead ofthe estimated
10,000 to 15,000 tonnes that actually did.
-47-
008986
Conclusions
Lunel (1997) concludes that, as a result of the grounding of the Sea Empress, 72,000 tonnes of
Forties Blend oil was released into the environment making this incident among the 20 largest oil
spills of all time. With up to 45% evaporating the potential was for 40,000 tonnes of oil to come
ashore. Since Forties Blend oil rapidly emulsifies to produce a 70% water~in~oil emulsion, this could
have translated into 130,000 tonnes of emulsion impacting the South Wales coastline if dispersants
and mechanical recovery had not been used.
Fortunately, the result ofthe combined dispersant and mechanical recovery operation was that only
around 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes of emulsion impacted the shoreline. The mechanical recovery
operation accounted for around 2,000 tonnes of oil (4,000 tonnes of emulsion) while it is estimated
that 36,000 tonnes of oil was dispersed.
-48-
008987
3. Gulf Of Mexico OCS Oils and their Likely Dispersibility

3.1 Introduction
In responding to an oil spill when physical recovery is the only cleanup option, the properties and
weathering characteristics of the spilled oil are of minor concern because skimming systems can
handle most oils however viscous. This is not the case for the technique ofchemical dispersion. Here
the spilled oil at the time of treatment must have relatively low viscosity. Dispersants are known to
be ineffective on oils that are highly viscous to begin with or on spilled oils that become highly
viscous after some weathering. In dispersant-use planning for a given area, it therefore becomes
important to "know your oils" and to know their weathering characteristics, their viscosity and their
probable dispersibility. This is a challenge in the GOMR area because there are about 5000 wells
working in the area, so there are about 5000 distinct oils to consider.
MMS maintains a database on GOMR oil reservoirs which includes data on oil types. Unfortunately,
the database is of limited value in evaluating the issue of spill dispersibility because the only oil
property provided is API gravity or oil density. As discussed in the previous chapter, oil density by
itself correlates only roughly to spill dispersibility. It is known that very high-density oils are usually
very viscous and highly resistant to chemical dispersion, and that very low-density oils are usually
non-viscous and very dispersible, but the dispersibility of spilled oils that have densities between
these extremes is impossible to predict without further information. Such information includes the
viscosity of the spilled oil when fresh as well as the viscosity of the spilled oil as it weathers over
time. These data can only be obtained by conducting weathering and spill-related tests in the
laboratory on the oils ofinterest. Fortunately, such testing has been done with several GOMR oils
and it is information from this testing that is particularly useful in assessing the dispersibility of
GOMR oils, as discussed below.
-49-
008988
3.2 Analysis of GOMR Oils as Provided in MMS Database

MMS maintains an atlas and comprehensive database on gas and oil reservoirs in the GOMR (it is
available for download on the Web at www.gomr.mms.govlhomepg/gomatlas/atlas.html). The atlas
is composed of two large-format folios that describe plays2 of hydrocarbon reservoirs. The data in
these atlases are summarized and
organized
by
geographic
information system (GIS) linking

map graphics and tabular data
together in a digital environment.
Digital data from the atlas series
include
(1)
attribute
data
of
reservoir pools, fields, and plays

and (2) GIS files of the boundaries
of fields
and
plays.
Various
Graphic from www.gomr.mms.govlhomepglgomatlas!atlas.html
engineering and production data on each play are averaged or summed and represented by a single
record. Similarly, production and reserve data are listed on each field as a single record.
These data sets are aggregated subsets of data from upcoming Gulf Atlas folios. For each ofthe 91
plays in the current atlas data set there are 20 fields of information, but for the purposes of this study
only a few are ofinterest. Table 3-I is a reduction ofthe data set to only 7 data fields showing all but
23 plays. The omitted plays each have cumulative oil productions of less than 100 Mbbl (100,000
bbl).
2 A play is a group of reservoirs genetically related by depositional origin, structural style or trap type, source rocks, and
seals. Play boundaries enclose fields that contain sandstone-body reservoirs in that play and exclude fields that do not. A
play may comprise one or many fields. Maps of GOMR plays are available at the web site noted in the above graphic.
-50-
008989
a. Excludes 23 plays, each of which produced less than 100Mbbls of oil
-51-
008990
The data column of particular interest is API gravity, and the table is sorted with respect to this
variable. It is seen that the great majority of API gravity values are relatively high, meaning that
GOMR oils are relatively light. (Remember that the gravities noted are average values for each play
and thus do not represent the entire range of API gravities encountered in the GOMR.) There are
very few plays that on average contain relatively heavy oils. Ignoring other influencing factors (such
as an oil's pour point and emulsifiability), this means generally that GOMR oils are likely to be
chemically dispersible.
There is sufficient information in the atlas database to calculate and plot the distribution of API oil
gravities on the basis of oil and gas fields (371 in total) and lease areas (22 in total). Figure 3-1
shows a plot of API gravity (right ordinate) and cumulative oil produced to date (left ordinate)
versus the 22 lease areas. The average for all is 32.9. This is equivalent to a specific gravity of
0.861. Compared to crude oils from other parts of the world, GOMR oils do appear to be relatively
light, and this is a favorable fact insofar as dispersant effectiveness is concerned. Considering the
ITOPF simple approach for estimating oil dispersibility (see section 2.3.2 in Chapter 2), GOMR oils
on average would have a dispersibility factor close to 2. This indicates that the oils on average are
relatively non-persistent and readily dispersible. (This assumes that the effect of pour point is
negligible, which is a reasonable assumption; it also ignores the effect of emulsification, which is not
reasonable. Both these factors are discussed later).
3.3 Analysis Of Gulf Oils That Have Undergone Spill-Related Testing

The above suggestion regarding the possible dispersibility of GOMR must be viewed cautiously
because, to repeat, more than API gravity information is required for evaluating the chemical
dispersibility of crude oil spills and for modelling the behavior of spills. What is usually needed is
information on oil composition (as measured by distillation data), pour point data, and the tendency
of the oil to emulsify as a function of evaporation. Regrettably, such data are not available for the
hundreds ofGOMR oils. However, over the past few years MMS has funded a number of "oil spill
analysis" projects which have included GOMR oils (MMS 1996, 1998, 1999; SL Ross 1998, 1999b).
About
thirty
GOMR
crude
oils
have
-52-
been
tested
thoroughly,
mostly
in
008991
10000000
-r------------------------:o-------r
45.0
(W EIGHlED AVEIME API GR\VllY IORAILOILPRJDUCING AItAS = 32.9 )
A.
0 Mns REIDS PIODUCINGM OSllY GAS
1000000 il",,:)l"CUM Oil
........
m
::E
i;~/:\1-l!I~t1lI"- Iil;.t/-lI~;: ~~=I j J: iH\?i'I-~ f~'lI-l\-f'~H ~
100000
:::
Q
UJ
v
::>
0
10000
...
::!
0
ILl
1000
Ie
I
I
I~. ~.:.'
D:
'IH;;~J-i!iJ--I~'r- '"
+.......--lliill
2:
....<.
f~
~,
~'f' ;(i;I-l!<,.~~I--Il''1.,;nl\H1~~~I-II/i>/-'IIT~i'-l""I~H'~I-Ilf1--I~I~1JH
~ I~
.,
ii'\ - Ii I
~
,t< r- <,
I ,
~; m ~I ~W
~..
30.0
m,'
~
: I I
~
..
-I~ ~
...I
'::l
::E
100
::l
U
20.0
10
I!
..::
(5
til
(")
;>::
:z
0
rr-
m fT1 Gl IT! ::r:

::e (/)
::u ::e (/) 15
IT!
tD
IT!
:u
(/)
-I
IT!
"'0
IT!
:;u
(/)
(")
3::
0
:z
(/)
-I
:z
(/)
c::
:z
1:1
Gl
tD
:z
::..:
1:1
IT!
:z
m
:z
::..:
(/)
I2.~!...
.~
-I
::r:
Ui
:u
IT!
::..:
r-
:z
l:7
til
c::
-I
::r:
"'0
rn
!:j
0
<
rn
:;u
3::
(5
:z
Gl
:u
f'1
f'1
:z
(")
:z
-<
0
:z
,f
0
~
0
~
f'1
3::
til
(I)
-I
(")
3::
f'1
:u
0
:z
Ui
Ui
::r:
til
(/)
:z
-<
0
:z
c::
-I
m
>-<
3::
3::
::u
:;u
::J:
(/)
::r:
Ui
(")
:z
1:1
til
c::
-I
::J:
-I
3:
tD
>riii
::u
3::
Z
"'0
(/)
(/)
til
::r:
:;;
til
::J:
r-
til
c:
-I
::r:
"'0
(/)
til
Gl
::u
:z
1:1
Ui
r-
IT!
IT!
c::
Gl
::e
til
IT!
-I
IT!
1:1
Ui
!:j
:z
r-
>:z
15.0
fT1
IT!
1:1
Figure 3-1 API Gravity and Cumulative Oil Production for OCS-GOM Lease Areasa
Environment Canada's Emergencies Science Division (ESD) Laboratory.3. The data supply the
necessary input for current oil spill behavior models including the SL Ross Oil Spill Model
(discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3) and ADIOS (Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills), the oil
spill model maintained by NOAA4 A list of the oils that have been thoroughly tested is provided in
Table 3_2 5
3 See Environment Canada's web site http://V'.'V>'w.etcentre.org/divisionslesd/englishiesd.html for databases on crude oils.
4 See NOAA's
latest model at the web site http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/software/adios/adios.html
5 The crude oil noted in the table as West Delta 143 was sampled in December 1998 from Equilon Pipeline
Company's processing facility West Delta (WD 143) after processing. After processing the oil flows on pipeline
segment 10553 to BM3. The Main Pass 69/225 crude oil was sampled on October 6, 1998 from the Shell pipeline
terminal, located 30 miles south of Venice, LA. The terminal is located on the 6O-mile pipeline between Main Pass
225 and Main Pass 69 (segment] 1015) and carries oil from the VK 826 processing facility (SL Ross 199b).
-53-
008992
The most important factor in the table is the oil's tendency to form emulsion because it is this
process that dramatically drives up the spilled oil's viscosity and drives down its dispersibility.1t is
seen in Table 3-2 that there is a wide range of values for this factor -
from a tendency to form
emulsion immediately, to a tendency to form emulsion only after the oil has evaporated by 50%, and
finally to a tendency to never form emulsion.
It is impossible to determine how representative these 28 oils are of aU GOMR oils. The weightedaverage API gravity of the 12 oils in the table for which oil reserve volumes are available in the
GOM Atlas database is 32.10. This is close to the average noted in Table 3-1 and in Figure 3.1. In
this sense the oils may be representative of all oils. Also, the oils were selected for analysis for
reasons other than the study of dispersant-use, so one could consider the oils listed in Table 3-2 to be
a random selection of GOMR crude oils and are in this sense representative of all crude oils in the
area. We will assume that to be case.
-54-
008993
Table 3-2 GOMR Oils That Have Undergone Comprehensive Spill-Related Testing
Oil Identifier
Field and Block
API
Gravity
Fresh Oil
Pour Point
OF
Oil Viscosity @ 60F at Various

Weathered (Evaporated) States
Emulsion
Formation
Tendencyc
~25%
0%
T201
-18
177
800
4250
yes@O%
lMississippi Canyon 807 (1998)*
28
-29
41
491
3454
yes@O%
West Delta 143
29
32
1572
yes@6%
lMississippi Canyon 807 (1999)*
28
33
404
2237
yes@8%
lViosca Knoll 826 #2
31
17
84
186
yes@ 15%
lMississippi Canyon 72
32
-18
16
34
195
yes@ 18%
Green Canyon 109
27
-33
39
225
690
yes@22%
Green Canyon 205
29
543
yes@23%
579
yes@23%
,Green Canyon 65*
~Banks387'
29
23
-9
1180
1350
yes@24%
Viosca Knoll 826 # 1
32
25
16
132
325
yes (Qj24%
Main Pass 69/225
34
13
118
yes@25 %
South Pass 49*
29
23
146
yes@30%
South Pass 93
33
19
23
32
yes@34%
Viosca Knoll 990*
38
12
31
yes@35%
South Pass 60
36
16
22
41
yes@38%
Garden Banks 426*
39
-8
13
34
yes@38%
:Green Canyon 184*
39
-47
11
31
yes@38%
South Pass 67
16
16-55?
39
110
yes@45%
Main Pass 37
39
27
16
36
yes@50%
Ship Shoal 239*
26
34
70
74
yes@50%
lNlain Pass 306*
33
-63
19
54
no
!Eugene Island 43
37
32
13
36
65
no
!Eugene Island 32*
45
10
16
21
no
lMississippi Canyon 194*
35
-40
15
21
no
Ship Shoal 269
39
-44
South Timbalier 130
35
-17
es
elta30*
no
10
19
no
I
no
-17
1
50
West Delta 97
011 reserve mfonnatlOn IS avaIlable for these OIls an the GOM Atlas
a. The percentage value refer to the amount of oil evaporation that must occur to start the emulsification process.
-55-
008994
3.4 Modeling and Categorizing Representative GOMR Crude Oils

It was proposed above that GOMR crude oils, on the basis of their API gravities alone, might be
reasonably dispersible. The objective now is to determine whether this remains to be the case when
the emulsification process is taken into account.
The first step in the exercise is to divide the 28 oils in Table 3-2 into four categories of "emulsion
formation tendency" ranging from highly emulsifiable oils to oils that do not emulsifY. The second
step is to conduct modeling (using the SL Ross Oil Spill Model) on selected oils in each category,
considering 1000-bbl and 10,000-bbl batch spills in the Gulf under average environmental
conditions. The end-result of the exercise is shown in Table 3-3 (see end of section).
It is seen that four of the 28 oils (14%) are considered highly emulsifiable and will have a very
narrow "window of opportunity" for dispersing with chemical dispersants. These are called Hi-E oils
in this study. They are defined as oils that will start to emulsifY after 0% to 10% of the spill has
evaporated. Consider the example of crude oil from Mississippi Canyon 802 (1998). A 1000-barrel
spill of this oil will begin to emulsifY immediately once exposed to the marine environment and will
reach a viscosity of 2000 cP in only 3 hours. In 9 hours it will have a viscosity of 20,000 cPo
Assuming the viscosity cut-off point for effective use of dispersants is in this range (it depends on
the type of dispersant and oil-there is uncertainty on th is), there is very limited time availab Ie for a
dispersant response to the spill.
The next category is for so-called Av-E oils (29% oftota). These are oils that will start to emulsifY
after 11 to 29% of the spill has evaporated. Considering Garden Banks 387 crude oil to be
representative of this class of oils, it is seen that there is a relatively narrow time-window for
effective dispersant response, but still significantly more time available than the Hi-E oils, namely,
33 to 72 hours depending on the selected spill size and viscosity cut-offvalue. The situation becomes
very good for the third category of Low-E oils (32% of total). These are oils that wil1 start to
emulsifY after 30 to 50% of the spill has evaporated. Here the ''window of opportunity" for effective
dispersant use becomes wide, and one has 141 to 267 hours (6 to 11 days) to respond to the spill
(considering a spill of Green Canyon 184 crude oil).
-56-
008995
Finally, the situation is ideal for the final category ofNo-E oils (25% of total). These crude oils do
not emulsify regardless of the extent of evaporation, and there is an unlimited amount of time for
using dispersant effectively on these spills if needed. This class of oils would also include diesel oils.
In summary, the opportunity for using dispersants effectively on the example oils shown in the table
is significant. Only the Hi-E oils are a serious problem and these represent' only 14% ofthe total. The
remaining 86% offer a reasonable chance of being good targets for a dispersant response program.
It can be concluded that, if the oils in Table 3-3 can be considered representative of all GOMR oils,
there is a general opportunity of using dispersant on spills involving GOMR crude oils. Indeed, both
Low-E oils and No-E oils, representing 57% of all spill possibilities, are excellent candidates for
responding with dispersants. There is much time available for dispersing such spills before the oils
become too viscous.
This conclusion speaks of GOMR crude oil spills in general. No two spills are alike, of course, and
there will be exceptions to the general statement. The lOOO-bbl and 10,OOO-bbl spills used in this
analysis are just examples; the dispersant-use time window will vary greatly as a function of spill
size, spill type and environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed)~ The following chapter now looks at
eight specific oil spill scenarios in the Gulf and analyses the dispersant-use possibilities in great
detail. In these scenarios four model oils are selected for study. These are the ones highlighted in
Table 3-3. Although the specific model oils have real crude oil names, to avoid confusion they will
be given generic names (Hi-E Oil, A v-E Oil, etc.) in the following modeling exercise.
-57-
Table 3-3 GOMR Crude Oils That Have Undergone Spill-Related Testing
API. I Fresh Oil
Gravlt 1P0ur Point
Crude Oil Name
Oil Viscosity@ 60F

at Various Weathered
States
OF
Y I
Size of "Window
of Opportunity"
for Successful
Dispersant Use
Emulsion
Formation
Tendency
0% 1-15%1-25%
1000 Barrel Batch Spill
10,000 Barrel Batch Spill
2000 cP
5000 cP
20,000 cP
2000 cP
5000 cP
20,000 cP
3.3
II
3.9
15
iHIGHLY EMULSIFIABLE OILS (Hi-E Oils) (Emulsion forms at 0 tolO % spill evaporation)
IGreen Canyon 65
lMiss. Canyon 807 (1999)1
20
-18
28 1
177
1 33
yes @O %
very narrow
1 404 1 2237 1 yes @ 8%
very narrow
800
4250
1~;:$.~,?~.,g;~tff~?'~1Ij:-3';:,lii.:~~r{t~U:;:.11t;1h1~1;";I:~~~~ E:res@Q%
IWest Delta143-BM3
1 29 1
1 32
1 1572 1 yes@6 %
1' ..very n!lfro\'v;l':. .. /It',;} I,: > ,., 4 "

I
very narrow
;9
"','1
3.7,,;I<~l::
t.:
:12,;;,.
30
5,9
54
67
68
73
109
III
117
48
52
246
78
82
>360,
IMEDIUM EMULSIFIABLE OILS (Av-E Oils) (Emulsion forms at II to 29 % spill evaporation)

lareen Canyon 205
1 29 1
1 26
1 157 1 543 1 yes @ 23% I
narrow
Garden Banks 387
IWest Delta 30
Mississippi Canyon 72
11-23?
-9
1180
32
-18
16
34
32
IViosca Knoll 826 #2
I 31 I
13
25
16
132
1350 1 yes @ 24 %
narrow
195
I yes@ 18%
narrow
118
I yes@25%
narrow
I 325 I yes @ 24%
narrow
I 17 I 84 I 186 I yes @ 15%
008996
Main Pass69 t0225

jviosca Knoll 826 #1
34
narrow
SLOWLY EMULSIFIABLE OILS (Low-E Oils)(Emulsion forms at 30 to 50+ % spill evaporation)

laarden Banks 426
1 39 1
-8
1 13
1 34
1 yes @ 38% 1
~.i~~;r~?.ll:;t~f)~i]~;~:jli1f%~:. +X:"f4~tj;;Jt;L~i' I:A}Y<d.~1::J.y:~S@:~811:

IMain Pass 37
39
27
16
34
70
Ship Shoal 239
26
South Pass 49
29
South Pass 93
33
19
South Pass 67
16
16-55?
39
South Pass 60
36
16
!VioscaKno1l990
23
1 38 1
wide
.:.:.Wide .'
36
1 yes@50%
wide
74
1 yes@50%
wide
146 1 yes@30%
wide
32
1 yes@34%
wide
110 1 yes@45%
wide
22
41
yes@38%
wide
1 12
1 31
1 yes@35%
wide
23
2]:
;14t',c3;h);::J43::LI:;J6~
disperse@117
.234"p6\J.>:~~61.(:.~
disperse@186
40
45
215
65
69
360
lOlLS THAT DO NOT EMULSIFY (No-E Oils) (Emulsion does not form)
lMain Pass 306
1 33
jEugene Island 43
1 37
-63
32
9
13
I 19 I 54
36
lB~geliciJ~iaiicr3t:; ij::li~:~ZI:.:" 4,~YI.:191}~
65
1 2t :
no
very wide
341
>360
>360
>360
>360
>360
no
very wide
306
>360
>360
>360
>360
>360
>360
. '. >36.b
no
;t\.verywi~e...
Mississippi Canyon 194 1 35
-40
15
21
no
very wide
Ship Shoal 269
39
-44
18
no
very wide
ISouth Timbalier 130
35
-17
lO
19
no
very wide
'West Delta 97
50
-17
no
very wide
',23'1' '.'
disperse@1 I 7
he ,;;:360:
>360
disperse@197
l,,,J:
:b*~6();,
:i.\.
008997
4. Oil Spill Scenarios

4.1 Basic Considerations
The overall objective ofthe study is to conduct an assessment ofthe operational and environmental
factors associated with the use of chemical dispersants to treat oil spills from GOMR facilities. In
most cases, the assessment will depend on the spill situation. In order to take this into account, a
number of spill scenarios were selected by an MMS oil spill project team to reflect the range of
possibilities associated with OCS installations. Specifically, the spills of interest are:
a. batch (or instantaneous) spills of various size from platforms or vessels;

b. large and small subsea oH well blowouts in shallow and deep waters;
c. large and small above-surface (platform-based) oil well blowouts; and
d. subsea pipeline spills.
The main factors that will influence the feasibility of using dispersants on specific spills include:
1. The characteristics of the spill, which are determined by spill type (e.g., batch spill vs.
continuous spill); spill size; oil type and properties; and water depth (for subsea blowouts
only). Spill behavior is also influenced by temperature and wind speed;
2. The environmental impacts of using or not using dispersants, which are determined by the
characteristics ofthe spill, its trajectory, its location with respect to shoreline and resources
at risk, and the time-of-the-year ofthe spill (which affects resource vulnerability); and
3. The dispersant response capability, which is determined by the availability, amount and
location of response systems (including dispersant product and application platforms); the
characteristics ofthe spill; and its distance from the base of operation.
Considering that there are many scenario possibilities and there is a need to restrict the number to a
manageable level, the following approach has been adopted. First, eight basic scenarios are selected
-59-
008998
that are not set in any particular location in the Gulfand do not occur at any particular time of year.
These are presented and explained, and then they are "moved" to various locations to assess the
effect ofthe relocations on dispersant response capability and environmental impact.
Because the basic scenarios are location- and season-independent. they are developed using average
temperature, wind and water current data. There is an obvious variation in these parameters across
the Gulf and over the seasons, but the variation will not greatly affect the behavior of spills, at least
in comparison to the effects ofthe other variables (spill type, spill size, oil type, etc.).
As noted earlier, because of major uncertainties in the behavior of deepwater blowouts, a less
rigorous approach has been taken in analyzing them in this study.
4.2 Fixed Environmental and Other Conditions

For all scenarios:
the water and air temperature is fixed at 23C. This is the likely temperature in late fall. It
also is the average of the summer mode and winter mode temperatures;
the residual water current is fixed at 15 cm/s; and
the wind speed is fixed at 6 m/s.
For the blowout scenarios:
fe I bbl;
the Gas-to-Oil Ratio (GOR) is fixed at 60 (unitless) or 336
for the above-sea release the discharges are assumed to occur through 4-inch (inner
diameter) pipe and 20 meters above the water; for the sub-sea blowouts the discharges are
assumed to flow through six-inch (inner diameter) pipe;
-60-
008999
the water depth for deep subsea blowouts (Scenario No.8) is fixed at 2300 metres, and for
the shallow water subsea blowouts (Scenarios No.6 and 7) the depths considered are 35, 50
and 150 meters6
4.3 Model Oils

Four model crude oils are used in the scenarios as discussed in Chapter 3. These range from an oil
that does not emulsify (presenting a very wide time window for effective dispersant use) to an oil
that emulsifies quickly (presenting a very narrow time window for effective dispersant use). The
names and properties of the model crude oils are shown in Table 4-1. Also shown is an oil called
"Destin Dome CIS Diesel". Environment Canada recently tested this oil, so good oil property data
are available for it. MMS requested that it be used as the model diesel oil in the exercise. The oil
seems to have typical diesel oil properties.
4.4 List of Selected Scenarios and Analysis Approach

Eight basic scenarios are chosen for analysis as shown in Table 4-2. The objective in this chapter is
to describe the behavior ofthe scenarios in concise, quantitative terms, starting with relatively small
and simple spills (Scenarios 1 and 2) and ending with a very large and complex spill (Scenario 8).
The subsea pipeline spills are not analyzed as a separate category because an instantaneous spill
from a pipeline carrying gas-free or "dead" oil, will behave as a batch spill, and a spill from a
pipeline carrying "live" oil, that is, both gas and oil, will behave as a small subsea blowout.
The scenarios are first varied to demonstrate the importance of certain parameters that affect spill
behavior and dispersant effectiveness. After this, one spill within each basic-scenario set is selected
for use in Chapters 5 and 6 for the assessments of dispersant logistics and environmental impact.
6 These water depths cover off the range of actual
depths at the hypothetical shallow-water blowouts studied in Chapters

5 and 6, namely, 37m, 46m, 52m, 101m, and 132 m.
-61-
009000
All spill behavior modeling work is done with the SL Ross Oil Spill Model (SLROSM) which is
briefly described in Section 2.1.4 of Chapter 2. Because there are so many scenario variations,
attempts are made to describe the spills as succinctly as possible, focusing on the characteristics of
the spills that affect the dispersant application operation and possible impacts; for a more general and
basic description of batch spills and blowout spills, please see Chapter 2.
-62-
Table 4.1 Four Model GOMR Crude Oils and Destin Dome Diesel Oil
Oil Viscosity @60 o P
States
Oil Name
API
Gravity
0%
1-
15%
1-
Emulsion
Formation
Tendency
Size of "Window
of Opportunity"
for Successful
Dispersant Use
Hours for Oil to reach Specified Viscosity

in 6 mls (12 kt) winds
10,000 Barrel Batch Spill
25%
2000 cP 1 5000 cP 120,000 cP 1 2000 cP 1 5000 cP 120,000 cP

HiE Oil
3.2
009001
Av-E Oil
Medium
Emulsifiable Oil
narrow
33
35
Wide
141
143
231
>360
IA-EOil
Low Einulsifiable
Oil
No-E Oil
Does Not EmulsiJY
Destin Dome CIS

Diesel
% refers to volume evaporated
21
Disperses3t 6 his@is
>360
>360
c:p.1 ... Dispcl:Ses at Iii hrs@ s cP
009002
Table 4-2 GOMR Spill Scenarios

#
Spill Description
Batch Spill
(la) 2000 bbl and

(lb) 20,000 bbl
Batch Spill
20,000 bbl
(2a) Lo-E Oil

(2b) A v-E Oil
(2c) Hi-E Oil
Batch SpiU
100,000 bbl
(3) Hi-E Oil
Surface Blowout,
average rate,
short duration
20,000 bbl =
5000 BOPDbx
4 days
(4a) Lo-E Oil

(4b) Av-E Oil
Surface Blowout,
high flow rate
1,400,000 bbl =
100,000 BOPD x
14 days
(Sa) Hi-E Oil

(5b) Av-E Oil
Subsurface
Blowout, shallow
water, low flow
20,000 bbl
5000 BOPD x
4 days
Av-EOil
(6a) 35 m deep
(6b) 50 m deep
(6c) 150 m
Subsurface
Blowout, shallow
water, high flow
100,000 bbl
7200 BOPD x
14 days
Av-E Oil
(7a) 35 m deep
(7b) 50 m deep
(7c) 150 m
9,000,000 bbl =
Subsurface
100,000 BOPD x
Blowout, deep
'water, high flow
90 days
Model oils defined In Table 4-1.
8
c.
Spill Volume
Model OW
(Ia) Diesel
(lb) No-E Oil
(8a) HI-E Oil

(8b) A v-E Oil
-64-
Comments
emulsify.
window, as compared to Spil1#l.
Could be worst-case FPSO spill or
Demonstrates the fast initial
challenge all countermeasures
methods for Hi-E oils and even A vOils and lighter.
same-sized batch spill (Spil1#2) and
surface blowout (Spill#4). Could
also represent Alive crudet pipeline
spill.
than surface blowout (Spil\#5)
air.
relief well
009003
4.5 Scenario Modeling Results

The modeling results of importance to the logistics of a dispersant operation, for spill scenarios 1
through 7, are summarized in Table 4-3. Because of major uncertainties regarding the behavior of
deepwater blowouts, no attempt has been made to model these spills mathematically. The data in the
table for the rest ofthe scenarios can be read as follows.
The first three rows in of data for each scenario present the basic characteristics of the spill. The
emulsification tendency of the oil spil1ed is provided along with basic release information.
The time at which the oil reaches two "cutoff" viscosities are the next pieces ofinformation reported.
The viscosity of the oil or emulsion in a slick is the main factor that determines whether or not
dispersants are likely to work ifproperly applied. It is believed that the maximum oil viscosity that
can be treated by modem dispersants is in the range of 5000 to 20,000 cPo The table shows
approximately how much time would be available to complete a dispersant operation ifthe cut-off
viscosity were 5000 cP or if it were 20,000 cP. A dash is placed in this space for those scenarios
where the cutoff viscosities are never reached (scenarios la, 1b, 2a and 4a). For these scenarios, the
total time that the surface slick is likely to survive on the surface before naturally dispersing
becomes the window of opportunity for dispersant application.
The time taken for the surface slick to be completely lost (due to natural dispersion, evaporation etc.)
is the next row of data presented in Table 4-3. This is followed by a number of rows of data that
describe the thickness of the thick oil portion of the slicks over time. An estimate ofthe oil thickness
is critical to the planning of a dispersant operation as it determines the quantity of dispersant
required per unit area of slick. The thicknesses reported have been used to assess the logistical
requirements for each scenario and in the estimation of possible impact to surface resources in the
vicinity of the spill.
The widths of the thick oil portion of the slicks, at various times in the slicks life, are the next data
reported. These widths are also needed to assess the logistical requirements of a dispersant operation.
-65-
Table 4-3 Spill Scenario Modeling Result Summary
Spin Info
Emulsification
Tendency
Volume Spilled (bbl)
Discharge Rate (BOPD)
Viscosity (cP)
Time to Visc,>5000 cP
(hr)
Time to Visc,>20000 cP
( hr)
Slick Thicknesses
Spill Scenario Identifier (refer to Table 4-2 for full descriPtion of scenario)
3
4a
4b
Sa
Sb
6a
6b
Ja
Ib
2a
2b
2c
No
No
Lo
Av
Hi
Hi
Lo
Av
Hi
Av
Av
2000
batch
20,000
batch
20,000
batch
20,000
batch
20,000
batch
100,000
batch
20,000
5000
20,000
5000
1,4000,000
100,000
1,4000,000
100,000
55
10
2,3
96
12
15
15
42
119
113
>720
>720
>720
15
40
20
2,0
1.25
112
20
4.1
3.0
1.I
110
,20
4.6
3.4
1.4
290
20
6.8
5.1
2.6
>720
20
II
10
8.2
>720
20
13.8
13.0
11.2
12
0.65
0.23
0.1
2.5
11
13.0
2.4
10
140
420
480
450
890
990
1150
450
820
915
1090
450
735
825
1003
550
1180
1I36
6c
7a
7b
7c
Av
Av
Av
Av
Av
20,000
5000
20,000
5000
20,000
5000
100,000
7200
100,000
7200
100,000
7200
22
3,5
2.5
4,3
4,0
2,9
5,2
36
5.5
4,3
6.2
4.9
>720
>720
>720
414
306
III
576
432
177
>720
0.80
0.40
0.35
0.31
>720
7.2
4.0
3.6
2.5
>720
8.4
1.9
0,9
24
0.12
0.06
0.057
0.050
27
0,09
0.047
0.045
0.038
36
0,05
0.024
0.022
0.017
30
0.15
0.082
0.077
0.068
33
0.12
0.063
0.060
0.050
45
0.067
0.032
0.030
0.024
0.36
5.0
1.0
0.063
0.049
0.025
0.084
0.065
0.034
12.7
0.34
4.1
0.95
0.061
0.047
0.024
0.08
0,063
0,032
450
550
566
600
1005
1104
1118
1166
37
45
48
36
43
44
46
66
86
89
90
66
133
150
165
300
300
300
300
373
373
373
373
677
677
677
677
340
340
340
340
422
422
422
422
765
765
765
765
1063
730
1386
49
51
90
180
300
373
677
340
422
765
(mm)
OJ
1.3
138
140
66
54
153
396
396
210
15
33
39
18
18
24
21
23
30
2,86
4.6
3,8
2.4
0,3
0.3
0.27
0,2
0.04
0.65
0.9
0.94
0.75
1.08
1.08
0.91
12
21
21
18_ -~
1.3
2.8
2.5
2,6
2.9
009004
Time to Loss of Slick

(hT)
Time to < .05 mrn (hr)
Initial Thickness
AI6 Hours
At 12 Hours
At48 Hours
When Viscosity at
5000cP
When Viscosity at
20000 cP
Slick Widtbs fm)
Initial Width
At6 Hours
At 12 Hours
At 48 Hours
At Loss of Slick or 720
hrs
Naturally Dispersed
Oil (top 10 metres)
Time when < 5ppm (hr)
Time when < I ppm
(hr)
Time when < 0.1 ppm
(hr)
Peak Concentration
(ppm)
Time Peak Reached (hTl
009005
The final data presented in Table 4-3 are dispersed oil concentrations that have been estimated as a
result of natural dispersion of the slicks. The elapsed times from oil release to the point where the
concentration in the water is likely to drop below 5,1 and 0.01 ppm are reported (also in the top 10
metres). These "cutoff" concentrations were selected because they represent lethal toxicity limits for
adult, juvenile and eggs and larvae life stages of many marine organisms. This information is used in
oil impact evaluations in Chapter 6. The peak oil concentration and time to peak concentration are
also reported to provide a picture of the time history of the dispersed oil concentration and
magnitude.
The following observations can be made about the specific results presented in Table 4-3.
Batch Spills: Scenarios 1 through 3

The windows of opportunity for the use of dispersants for the batch spill scenarios 1a, 1band 2a are
determined by the amount of time available prior to the loss ofthe surface slick by natural dispersion
and not by an increase in the oil's viscosity due to emulsification. This is due to the low tendency of
the oils used in these scenarios to form emulsions. The decision to chemically disperse these type of
spill would depend on the presence of surface animals in the vicinity ofthe spill andlor the time that
it might take for the surface oil to reach shoreline resources.
Emulsion viscosities for the Hi-E batch spills (scenarios 2c and 3) will exceed chemically dispersible
levels within about 10 to 15 hours. Because ofthis small time window, it will be difficult to mount a
dispersant operation for these spills. On the other hand, the A v-E oil batch spill (scenario 2b) is an
obvious candidate for dispersant use because it is relatively persistent (> 30 days}-and, thus, a
threat to even distant shorelines-and yet it does not emulsify quickly (96 hours), allowing ample
time to implement a spraying operation.
The thickness of all of the batch spills at 6 to 12 hours after release range from 2 to 14 mm. This is
relatively thick oil that would require multiple spray passes from aircraft application systems or
relatively high capacity vessel-based spray systems to achieve proper dosage. The widths ofthe thick
-67-
009006
oil portions of these slicks will range from about 500 meters to a kilometer during dispersant
operations.
Peak in-water oil concentrations in the 2 to 4 ppm range are predicted for the No-E, Lo-E and Av-E
scenarios due to the relatively rapid natural dispersion of these oils. Much smaller peak
concentrations (0.3 ppm) are predicted for the Hi-E oils due to their rapid emulsification that retards
the natural dispersion processes.
Above Sea Blowouts: Scenarios 4 and 5
The primary difference between the above sea blowout results and the batch spills of similar oil and
total spill volume is the initial thickness and widths of the oil slicks and the long-term release
characteristics ofthe blowouts. The thick oil portions ofthe lower-flowrate blowouts of scenario 4
will only be about 50 meters wide and will be less than 1 mm thick. The slicks of the high flow rate
above sea scenarios (5a and 5b) will be about 100 to 150 m wide and 1 to 4 mm thick.
The Lo-E oil again will disperse quickly (within 15 hours) but because of the smaller initial oil
thickness it will likely generate much lower in-water oil concentrations ( less than 0.3 ppm) than the
batch spills.
The oil from an A v-E oil, lower flow, blowout (4b) will emulsify relatively rapidly (10 to 15 hours),
as it did in the batch spills, but because this spill is continuous and lasts over a period of 4 days it
will be possible to mount a spraying operation to treatthe freshly released oil during daylight hours.
Much of the oil released overnight will also remain treatable the next day because of the 10 to 12
hour window of opportunity for this scenario. Even though the initial oil thickness is small for this
spill, the spill is predicted to last for a long time (> 30 days) due to the formation of emulsion and
therefore this spill is an obvious candidate for chemica,l dispersion.
The Hi-E oil of scenario 5a emulsifies very quickly and provides a window of opportunity for
dispersant application of only about 5 hours. Much of the oil that is released overnight during this
blowout will not be amenable to effective dispersant treatment the next day. The fresh oil released
from this high flow rate scenario will be relatively thick (2.5 to 4 mm) and narrow 100m) making
-68-
009007
it a good candidate for vessel-based dispersant application as long as the dispersant is applied very
close to the source. Dispersed oil concentrations from the natural dispersion ofthis spill will be very
low due to the rapid emulsification of the oil.
Scenario 5b has the same high flow rate as Sa but the lighter oil (A v-E) results in a longer window of
opportunity for dispersant application (up to 36 hours). This oil will spread somewhat more than the
Hi-E oil of Sa (ISO m thick oil width) and will have smaller oil thicknesses (I to 2 mm). This
scenario is also a good candidate for dispersant use as the slicks will survive a long time if left
untreated (> 30 days) but dispersants should be effective on all of the oil, even that discharged over
night.
Subsea Blowouts: Scenarios 6 and 7

In these scenarios the a, band c designations refer to the different release depths of 35, 50 and 150
m, respectively. As the release point gets deeper the surface slick becomes wider (increasing from
approximately 300 m to 750 m) and thinner (decreasing from about 0.15 mm to .05 mm) . The
higher flow rates of scenario 7 increase the slick widths and thicknesses somewhat, but not radically.
The window of opportunity for dispersant application in these scenarios is between 4 to 7 hours.
Because these spills are all continuous releases, the fresh oil emanating from the blowout site during
the day will be treatable as long as it can be dosed within about 6 hours of its release. However,
much of the oil released overnight will not be chemically dispersible the following morning. The
dispersant application system used to apply the dispersant will have to be designed to properly dose
the relatively thin slicks (50 to 120 micrometers) that result from these blowouts.
The peak dispersed oil concentrations from these subsea blowouts will be on the order of 1 ppm.
-69-
009008
5. Analysis of Logistics and Operational Efficiency Factors

5. 1 Introduction
This chapter deals with the operational factors that control the effectiveness of dispersant operations
in dealing with spills from offshore MMS-regulated facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. Even if
dispersant products are highly effective and the spilled oils are dispersible when fresh, the
responders' ability to apply sufficient dispersant to treat all of the spilled oil within the available
time window will be controlled by a number of factors, including:
(l) availability of dispersant product;

(2) characteristics of platforms (payload, pump rate, speed);
(3) spill conditions (e.g., type of spill, behavior of the oil, distance offshore);
(4) ability to identify thick oil areas and position spray equipment accordingly;
(5) availability of effectiveness monitoring; and
(6) weather and daylight hours.
The objective is to (a) analyze the effect of each ofthese factors on operations; (b) assess the current
level of dispersant capability in the Gulf, as tested against the spill scenarios developed earlier in the
report; and (c) evaluate modifications to existing systems that might improve the capability in a costeffective manner.
There are several types of dispersant application platforms available for use in the Gulf of Mexico
and many spill scenarios to consider. A major challenge in the study was organizing and analyzing
the many platform/spill combinations. To assist in this regard, several numerical logistics models
were developed specifically for the project and programmed in MS Excel format.
The chapter contains four sections:
I) Setting - briefly describes conditions in the Gulf area that influence operational efficiency;
-70-
009009
2) Weather and Daylight Conditions -
describes the degree to which weather and day length
conditions in the Gulf of Mexico area influence dispersant response;
3) Delivery Capacity -
uses the output of logistic models to describe the capacity of GOM
dispersant response resources to treat hypothetical spills under a range of conditions; and
4) Targeting and Monitoring - describes certain quality assurance activities that are applied at
the point of dispersant spraying that can maximize the efficiency of dispersant application.
5.2 Setting
5.2.1 Spill Conditions
Specific spill scenarios and spiIJ locations have been selected for analysis to determine the
capabilities and limitations of existing dispersant response platforms in the GulfofMexico.
Spill Scenarios. The spill scenarios in Table 5-1 are selected to aid in considering the response
limitations of dispersants and spraying platforms. The scenarios and the fate of oil in each have been
described in detail earlier in this report and are summarized only briefly here. These scenarios
include both batch and continuous spills (blowouts) with a broad range of spill volumes and oil types
(having different tendencies to form emulsion). Because batch and continuous spills pose such
drastically different problems for responders, they are treated separately.
Spill Locations. The location of a spill controls a number of aspects of spi II impact and response,
including: a) the environmental risk it poses and the net environmental benefit offered by
dispersants; and b) the logistics challenges faced by responders. The launch points identified in
Table 5-2 and Map 5-1, cover the entire oil-producing area in the Gulf, from Texas to the Destin
Dome area off Florida. They include shallow nearshore sites, sites in deep, offshore waters and sites
in mid-shelf areas. These launch sites influence at least two aspects ofthis logistic analysis: (a) the
length oftime required for oil slicks to reach the shoreline and therefore the time available for onwater remediation (Table 5-3); and b) the distance from a responder's base of operations to the spill.
-71-
009010
Table 5-1 Summary of oil spill scenarios and spill conditions

I
Scenario
Number
Spill
Type
Spill
Volume,
barrels
Ia
Batch
2000
instantaneous
diesel
Ib
Batch
20000
instantaneous
No-E
2a
Batch
20000
instantaneous
Lo-E
2b
Batch
20000
instantaneous
Av-E
2c
Batch
20000
instantaneous
Hi-E
Batch
100,000
instantaneous
Hi-E
4a
Blowout
20000
5000 BOPD x 4 days
Lo-E
4b
Blowout
20000
5000 BOPD x 4 days
Av-E
5a
Blowout
1,400,000
100,000 BOPD x 14 days Hi-E
5b
Blowout
1,400,000
100,000 BOPD x 14 days
Av-E
6a
Blowout
80,000
Av-E
6b
Blowout
80,000
Av-E
6c
Blowout
80,000
Av-E
7a
Blowout
100,000
7200 BOPD x 14 days
Av-E
7b
Blowout
100,000
7200 BOPD x 14 days
Av-E
Discharge Rate and

Duration
Oil Typea
7c
Blowout
100,000
7200 BOPD x 14 days
Av-E
8a
Blowout
9,000,000
Hi-E
8b
Blowout
9,000,000
100,000 BOPD x 90 days Av-E
..
a. See Chapter 4 for defimtlOns
-72-
009011
Table 5-2 Spill launch sites

Nominal Location
Abbreviation
Lat. (deg)
Long. (deg)
Location on Map
Texas - Nearshore
TX-NS
27.619
96.624
Louisiana - Nearshore
LA-NS
28.725
89.25
MP
28.614
93.214
93.761
Midpoint
Flower Gardens
Deepwater Site
DW
27.083
90.166
Destin Dome
DD
29.980
87.18
Table 5-3: Length of time required for slicks from various launch points to reach shorea
Time to Shore (days)
Scenario
Summer
25 percentile b 50 percentileC
Winter
25 percentile
50 percentile
Texas-Nearshore
Destin Domed
Mid-Point
Flower Gardens
Louisiana - Nearshore
5.5
5
16
7
2
9
7
23
30+
3.5
4
15
22
10
6
7
29
30+
30+
Deepwater Site
30+
30+
30+
30+
a.
b.
c.
d.
Based on Price et at (2000)

Time at which conditional probability of shoreline contact;:::: 25%
Time at which conditional probability of shoreline contact;:::: 50%
Based on Price et at (1998)
Map 5-1 Locations of spill launch sites and shoreline segments
Iil
DW
-.-
-73-
Land Segment Boundaries

Launch Site
009012
5.2.2 Response Resources

This section summarizes the availability and logistics characteristics of response resources currently
available to responders in the Gulf of Mexico area.
Dispersant Products. A major limiting factor in dispersant operations can be the quantity of
dispersant available. Within the U.S., only dispersants that have met the approval criteria set by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and that are listed on the EPA National Contingency Plan
Product Schedule7 can be legally sprayed. The most recently published NCP Product Schedule
(December 1999) included the following products:
Corexit 9527
NEOS AB 3000
MARE CLEAN 200
Corexit 9500
DISPERSIT SPC 1000
Of these, only Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500 are stockpiled in large quantity within the U.S. The
product, U.S. Polychemical DISPERSIT SPC lOOO, has only recently been added to the list and is
not yet widely available in product stockpiles. The remaining two products NEOS AB 3000 and
MARE CLEAN 200 have never been stockpiled in quantity in North America despite having been
on the NCP Product Schedule for many years.
The dispersant stockpiles in North America are summarized in Table 5-4. The values are
approximate because quantities change constantly. The amount of dispersant available in the GOM
area is 182,6lO gallons. At least a portion of the remaining 222,290 gallons of dispersant could be
made available for use on spills in the Gulf, as shown.
See http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/ncp/dsprsnts.htm
-74-
it::npr<:i.lmt
in the Gulf of Mexico area and elsewhere in North America

Comments
Sugarland. TX (NalcolExxon) ICOREXIT 9500

Houma, LA (ASI)
COREXIT 9527
COREXIT 9527
Almt'1rnl"
Support,Inc.)
- (504) 368-9845
9500
9527
1Howard Barker-(504)851-6391
INalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals(d)
Sugarland, Texas
Cameron, LA
Leeville, LA,
Vessel
Morgan City, LA
-75-
9500
9527
COREXIT9527
COREXIT9527
COREXIT9527
COREXIT9527
DISPERSIT SPC 1000
can produce approximately

gallons of dispersant per day
emergency conditons
JVI't'tIJVU
009013
Support, Inc.
Houma, LA
""-11 UUIU..,
"np.N~mt

Comments
Honolulu, HI
Pt. Everglades, FL
Pt Everglades, FL
Trinidad
Smith - (732)346-2450
(CIRO)
Cook Inlet, AK
Doug Lentsch - (907)776-5129
Clean Seas COOP
Carpenteria, CA
Darrel Waldron - (805)684-3838
Clean Bay COOP
Concord, CA
Steve Ricks - (925)685-2800
Clean Coastal Waters
Long Beach, CA
Sean Torkleson - (562)432-1415
AK
Ak
Anchorage, Ak
Carpenteria
Carpenteria
(COOP Member Use Only)
Martinez, CA
Richmond, CA (Chevron)
Long Beach (CCW Yard), CA I LVKCAl
-76-
009014
Lyndon, NJ
Availability of stockpile for use outside of

Caribbean Area
50% of stockpile to COOP members
25% available to non-members
100% available if replaced within 48 to
72 hours

i
Ridge, NY
(a) Prepared on 12 September 2000. Note that dispersant quantities and contact information change from time to time.
The authors have made every effort to ensure that information is accurate as of the date of preparation, bu information
reported here must be regarded as approximate and should he updated on a regular basis.
(b) Adapted and updated from material provided by MSRC August 2000.
(c) A portion of Clean Gulf and LOOP dispersant is stored at Airborne Support, Inc., Houma, LA (504)851-6391
(d) Garner Environmental Services is the distributor for NalcolExxon
-77-
Comments
U.S. Polychernical can produce

approximately 44000 gallons of
dispersant per day under emergency
conditons
009015
Polychemical Corporation
Chestnut Ridge, NY
Robert Bergman - (914)356-5530
Type of
--_._- -
-- ---------- --
--------
Organization
-- _.- _._- ._-_ ..__ ..
---
Description and Quantity
Location of Equipment
Comments
Within the Gulf of Mexico Area

Houma, LA
DC-4 Custom Aircraft Spray System x 1

2xDC-3 Custom Aircraft Spray System x 1
National Response Corporation

Houston, TX
David Kendall (713)-977-9951
Cameron, LA
Leeville, LA,
Vessel
Morgan City, LA
Morgan City, LA
1 )( fin-type spray system, 13-60 gpm capacity, neat (a)

1 x fin-type spray system, 13-60 gpm capacity, neat
1 )( fin-type spray system, 13-60 gpm capacity, neat
I x fin-type spl1ly system, 13-60 gpm capacity, neat
I x fin-type spray system, 60-240 gpm capacity, educted vessel
speeds 5 to 20 knots
Clean Gulf Associates (a)

New Orleans,LA
Dick Armstrong - (504)593-6700
Frank Palmisano - (504 )580-0924
Hooma,LA
1 x vessel-based system.
fin-type, diluted, maximum flow rates 30 gpm dispersant,
150 gpm water; payload up to 49 drums dispersant;
speed 24 kts, maximum
LOOP, Inc.
New Orleans, LA
Cindy Gardner-leBlanc (504 )363-9299
Houma, LA
3 x vessel based systems
Emergency Aerial Dispersant Consortium

Tynan,TX
Ed Rosenberg (512)-547-9928
Tynan, TX
Mer Rouge, LA
Mer Rouge, LA
Rosenberg, TX
Rosenberg, TX
2xAf..a::2
2xAf..a::2
-78-
2X l3X)G\IIOII CPPPCIlY 1lR31'E AlFCiIlFf
1 XAf..a::2
2xAf..s::2
009016
Airborne Support, Inc.

Houma, LA
Howard Barker - (504)851-6391
... _u.'" ...,. . . . . ..,
A.wIV~"'.""4"~
"'...
_,",_I..
"J ..... _~ .......
_,o.~,.,
. . . . . .--.... "'..... - . . .
Organization
b ..... "'1. .............. :._...& ..
Location of Equipment
Description and Quantity
Comments
Dispersant Systems Outside Gulf of Mexico Area:

Higb Capacity Systems Only
2 x ADDS Packs
Honolulu, HI
1 x ADDS Pack
Pt. Everglades, FL
Pt. Everglades, FL
I x ADDS Pack (Property of MIR-G)
Southampton, United Kingdom
I x ADDS Pack
Singapore, Singapore
I x ADDS Pack
Rigby, Idaho
Rigby, Idaho
Coolidge, AZ
Coolidge,AZ
\ x AT-802
2 x AT-502
hAT-S02
\ x AT-S02
US Coast Guard
District 8 Marine Safety Division
504/589-6255 or
CDR Ed Stanton, Gulf Strike Team (334)-44\-660 I
CG Air Station Mobile, AL

CG Air Station, Clearwater, FL
Other Gulf Coast Facilities
The US Coast Guard can provide C-130

aircraft to deploy the ADDS Pack.
USAF 910 AIRLIFT WING (ASAFR 757 AIR WING),

Vienna, Ohio
LT COL Mike Deckman (330)-609 -1258 (commanding
officer) or
LT COL Marty Davis (330)-609 -1531
Vienna,OH
C-130-based aerial dispersant spraying capability
a) A portion of Clean Gulfand LOOP dispersant is stored at Airborne Support, Inc., Houma, LA
-79-
(504)851-6391
No apparent restriction on
availability
009017
Anchorage, AK
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company

Anchorage, AK
Mark Delozier - (907)834-6901
Clean Islands COWlcillState of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI
Kim Beasely -(808)536-5814
Clean Caribbean COOP
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Paul Schuler - (954 )983-9880
Oil Spill Response Limited
London, United Kingdom
David Neilson 44-20-7724-0102
East Asia Response Limited
Singapore, Singapore
Ms Alicia Ching 65-266-1566
Emergency Aerial Dispersant Consortiwn
Tynan, TX
Ed Rosenberg (512)-547-9928
009018
In addition to the stockpiles already in place, the manufacturers of Corexit 9500 and Polychem
Dispersit SPC 1000 claim to be capable of producing approximately 44,000 gallons (=800x55-gallon
drums) per day on an emergency basis.
Response Resources. Another key component of the dispersant response system is the spraying
platform used to apply dispersants. The logistics characteristics of dispersant application platforms
currently available in the Gulf area are listed in Table 5-5. These are used in Section 5.4 to estimate
the capabilities of these platforms to respond to different spill scenarios. A few key features ofthe
platforms are mentioned here.
1) C-130/ADDS Pack. The C-130 aircraft, equipped with the ADDS Pack (Airborne
Dispersant Delivery System) has the greatest overall dispersant delivery capacity of any
existing platform. This is by virtue of its high payload, spray rate, swath width and transit
speed. At present, its main drawback in the Gulf of Mexico is that start-up times may be
lengthy. Spraying would not begin until the morning of the second day of the spill, in
most cases.
2) DC-4. This platform is modeled after the dedicated dispersant spraying aircraft owned by
Airborne Support Incorporated of Houma, LA. This aircraft has the greatest delivery
capacity of any dedicated aircraft application system currently available in the U.S. The
key feature of this system is that it operates on a "firehouse" basis, meaning that it is
dedicated to the task of dispersant spraying and is in a constant state of readiness. Its
start-up time is one hour or less.
3) DC-3. This platform is also modeled after the dedicated dispersant spraying aircraft
owned by Airborne Support Incorporated of Houma, LA. This aircraft has the second
greatest delivery capacity of the dedicated aircraft systems. This system also reports a
start-up time of one hour or less.
-80-
Table 5-5 Ch
fdIspersant 5 ~raymg Pilatfi
the Gulf of M ----. -Average
Payload,
US gal
Pump
Rate,
USgpm
Swath
Width,
feet
Average
Transit
Speed,
knots
C-130/ADDS-pack
5500
600
100
214
24
140
DC-4a
2000-2500
500
100
214
157
DC-3
1200
185
100
151
150
Agtruck AT-802
800
120
80
200
140
0.5
200 miles
AgruckAT-502
500
120
80
200
140
0.5
200 miles
Helicopter
250
79
80
90
50
0.5
0.25
1.75 hours
Vessel Ab
900
118
350
Vessel DC
20,000
60
175
25
25
Application
System
Start-up Spray Re-Posit.

Time, Speed, Time,
mm
hours
knots
Re-Supply
Time,
hours
Range
7 hours
It
009019
a.. Values r"f,0rted m the literature tor alrcratt}O~lSnC cl1aractensucs such as payload are somewhat var1a!>le. fior.the UC-4 pJ':l~ad ,:a1ues ran~e t!~m
2000 to 500 ~lons. The value used in calcu ations is at the up'per end of this ran~e, 2500 gallons. It must be recognize that the payloa of the
existing DC-4 platform in the Gulf of Mexico area is somewhat lower than this at 2 00 gallons.
.
b. Modeled after NRC Vessel "Jim G 2X450 gal tank capacity, single nozzle application s system, 2 eductor units with 1000 gpm (1 to 12 %
dispersant), and a throw of 175 feet.
.
c. Modeled after new portable single-nozzle spray ~stem developed by National Response Corporation and mounted on one of their new crew-cargo
vessels. System characteristics are as follows (A. oods, pers. comm.):
Payload - capacity is up to 20,000 gallons in the form of up to lOx 2000-gallon DOT marine-portable tanks;
Pump rates - variable at 12, 25,40, and 60 gallons per minute;
Swath width - ran~e of nozzle varies with pump rate up to 70 feet @ 60 gpm, with one system on each side. Allowing for the 35' beam
of thevessel, swath wi th is 140';
Vessel speed - maximmn speed. is7? knots
-
009020
4) Cessna AT-802 (Agtruck). These are small, single engine aircraft that are purpose-built
for aerial spraying. In the U.S. a group of operators have organized to offer a dispersant
spraying service using this aircraft. A number of these are available in the Gulf area.
These operators guarantee a start-up time of four hours or less. These have a lesser
payload capacity than certain of the larger aircraft, but this deficiency is somewhat
compensated for by availability of multiple platforms. These have a somewhat more
limited range over water than the large, multi-engine aircraft.
5) Helicopter. Helicopters equipped with spray buckets have the advantage of availability.
They are limited by their small payload and limited range. They have the advantage of
high maneuverabiHty and a capable of being re-supplied near a spill site, which greatly
increases their operational efficiency.
6) Vessels. There are a number of vessel systems currently available in the Gulfarea. These
systems vary widely in terms oftheir operational capabilities, specifically their payloads,
pump rates and swath widths, as illustrated in Table 5-6. In general, the relatively low
payloads of most vessels severely limit their capabilities. However, the recent addition of
larger, high speed crew-cargo vessels, equipped with portable dispersant spray systems
and deck-mounted marine portable tanks have greatly improved the response capability
of this group, as illustrated below.
Table 5-6 Logistic characteristics of existing vessels in Gulf of Mexico

Application System
Payload,
Pump Rate,
Swath Width, Maximum Speed,
USgpm
feet
knots
900
118
350
2000
10
60
Vessel C b
12000
10
60
Vessel DC
20,000
60
175
2S
US
Vessel A
Vessel
Bb
Ia. Modeled after NRC Vessel "Jim Gil.

lb. Modeled after LOOP responder vessels.
!C. Modeled after new portable single-nozzle spray system developed by National Response Corporation
and mounted on one of their new crew-cargo vessels. System characteristics are detailed in Table 5-5.
-82-
009021
5.2.3 Influence of Day Length, Weather, and Oceanographic Conditions

Dispersant operations may be limited by day length, weather, and oceanographic conditions. This
section summarizes these conditions and assesses the extent to which these conditions might hamper
dispersant operations within the study area.
Day Length and Visibility. Day length and visibility exert strong influence over dispersant
operations because all dispersant operations involve aircraft, either as platform or spotter. Some of
the spraying platforms are aircraft and spraying operations involve low-altitude flying. Also, the
spraying phase of the operation must be directed by an airborne controller. As such, spraying
operations are possible only when conditions permit VFR flying, that is, during the hours of daylight
with visibility greater than 0.5 miles and ceiling height greater than 1000 feet.
Information concerning day length, ceiling height and visibility within the study area are
summarized in Table 5-7. Day length atthis latitude varies little with season, range from 10.2 to 13.9
hours. For purposes of this study, day lengths have been assumed to be constant at 12 hours.
The data concerning ceiling height and visibility conditions given in Table 5-8 show that conditions
are suitable for VFR flying and therefore suitable for dispersant operations in excess of ninety
percent ofthe time in spring, summer and autumn in all areas. Conditions are suitable in winter more
than eighty percent of the time.
Wave Height and Wind Speed. Both mechanical recovery and vessel-based dispersant use are
sensitive to sea state or significant wave height. Dispersants require that there be at least some
mixing energy in the form of waves so their effectiveness might be in question under conditions of
complete calm. On the other hand, they will be limited by excessive wind and waves. The data in
Table 5-9 show that work boats and single-engine aircraft can operate at wind speeds up to 21 knots,
helicopters to 27 knots, and large, fixed-wing aircraft to winds of 30 knots. The wind speed data
below suggest that wind speeds in both nearshore and offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico are
generally suitable for all platforms (less than 21 knots) more than ninety percent of the time. They
are suitable for helicopters and large fixed-wing aircraft virtually 100 percent of the time.
-83-
009022
Table 5-7 Hours of daylight at northern and southern limits of study area
Location
New Orleans, LA
Corpus Christi, TX
Jan 1
Apr 1
10.2
10.4
12.4
12.4
Jul 1
Oct 1
11.8
11.8
13.9
13.7
Table 5-8 Frequency of ceiling height and visibility conditions within the study areaa
Visibility
Apr
Jul
Oct
Corpus Christi, Tx
Percent Frequency<O.5 nm Ceiling
2.2
Percent Frequency <1000 feet
19.6
1.5
16.6
0.1
3.3
0.1
7.4
New Orleans, La
Percent Frequency<0.5 nm Ceiling
0.5
14.2
0.3
9.0
0.1
5.0
0.2
7.8
Pensacola, FI
Percent Frequency<0.5 nm Ceiling
1.3
13.7
0.5
8.0
0.1
4.2
0.1
7.5
Jan
a. U.S. Naval Weather Service Command (1975)
Table 5-9: Wind and sea state limitations for dispersant application systemsa
Approximate Upper Limit for Safe and Effective
Spraying Operations
Application System
Work boats (Tugboat type)
Single-Engine Airplanes
Medium-Sized Helicopters
Large,Multi-Engine Airplanes
a. Exxon (1994)
Beaufort
Scale
Wind Speed
(knots)
Significant Wave
Height (ft)
3-5
7-21
1-9
17-21
6-9
5-6
17-27
6-17
30-35
17-23
009023
The infonnation on wave height given in Table 5-10, show that there is adequate mixing energy for
dispersant use virtually all ofthe time outside of the summer months. It is noteworthy that at the
offshore station, waves are reported to be calm almost twenty percent of the time. Several factors
must be borne in mind in selecting countermeasures for use in these periods of relative calm. First,
dispersant effectiveness is directly proportional to the level of mixing energy, so that at very low
mixing energy effectiveness is likely to be very low. Also, it is unlikely that dispersant that is applied
during periods of calm will remain mixed with the oil until sea states increase. However, experience
in this area is very limited, so for the present a pragmatic approach to dispersant use is suggested;
that is, try dispersants and monitor the outcome. In this connection, it is important to recognize that
at low sea states, the rate of emulsification is also drastically reduced, so that the spilled oil may sti II
be dispersible when sea states increase at the end ofthe calm period. Second, low sea states are the
ideal conditions for using mechanical containment and recovery methods and these methods should
,?e considered for both small and large spills. For small spills, mechanical methods maybe sufficient
to completely handle the spill, and may obviate the need for dispersants. For larger spills,
mechanical methods may not be adequate to treat the entire spillage, but their use can reduce the
overall amount of dispersant needed and the amount of oil dispersed into the water column. This
may be significant ifthe dispersed oil cloud poses a significant threat to a valued resource.
Temperatures. Average water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico vary somewhat with location and
season, but generally range from to 20 to 30C, as seen in Table 5-11. Water temperature can be
important in dispersant planning because when sea temperatures (and temperatures of oil slicks) are
below the pour point of the fresh oil, the oil becomes semi-solid and dispersants are ineffective.
Fortunately, most oils produced in the Gulf have pour points much lower than the ambient
temperatures, as mentioned in Chapter 3.
-85-
009024
Table 5-10 Wave height and wind speed conditions in the study areaa
Parameter
Jul
Oct
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
12.8
<1
92
99
100
10.9
1
98
100
100
12.7
<1
93
98
100
7
96
100
1
76
98
7.1
10.5
1
99
100
100
Apr
Jan
Off Freeport, Tx (28.7 N 95.3 W)

Significant Wave Height
Percent Frequency
Mean Wind Speed (kts)

Percent Frequency
calm n.dP}
<3 feet n.d.
<6 feet n.d.
calm
<21
<27
<34
12.8
1
88
97
100
Offshore Alablama (29.3 N 87.5 W)

Percent Frequency

Percent Frequency
calm 0
<3 feet 71
<6 feet 91
4
71
95
11.7
calm 1
<21 93
<27 99
<34 100
10.6
1
98
100
100
5
100
100
100
Offshore Gulf of Mexico (25.9 N 89.7 W)

Percent Frequency

Percent Frequency
calm
<3 feet
<6 feet
<1
56
85
13.4
calm <1
<21 87
<27 98
<34 100
a NOAA (1990)
-86-
2
63
94
18
94
99
<1
64
94
12.0
<1
91
99
100
7.6
3
98
100
100
12.0
<1
95
99
100
009025
Table 5-11 Sea and air temperature conditions within the study areaa
Dec-Feb
Parameter
Mar-May
Jun-Aug
Sep-Nov
Off Freeport, Tx (28.7 N 95.3 W)

Mean Temperature, Air CC)
Mean Temperature, Water (0C)
11.4
19.8
28.2
24.8
12.8
19.5
29.2
25.6
Off Alabama (29.3 N 87.5 W)

Mean Temperature, Air CC)
Mean Temperature, Water CC)
15.4
19.1
28.0
24.4
20.3
20.6
29.4
27.2
Offshore Gulf of Mexico (25.9 N 89.7 W)

Mean Temperature, Air (0C)
Mean Temperature, Water Cc)
20.5
23.0
28.6
26.0
23.5
23.4
29.3
27.4
a. NOAA (1990)
-87-
009026
5.3 Dispersant Delivery Capacity

Some of the most critical factors limiting the operational effectiveness of dispersant operations are
the logistic limits ofthe spraying platforms, that is, the payload, speed, pump rate, and availability of
the vessels and aircraft that spray dispersants. This section examines the performance variation
among platforms currently available in the Gulf of Mexico area. Capabilities have been assessed by
. estimating the theoretical performance of each platform in a number of hypothetical, but realistic
spill scenarios. The measure of performance is the ability ofthe platform to spray dispersant on spills
within an available time window. Spraying ability has been calculated using simple numerical
models. The logistical and computational problems associated with blowouts differ greatly from
those of batch spills, so these are treated separately.
5.3.1 Batch Spills

Batch spills are spills in which all of the spilled oil is released at once, resulting in a single batch or
slick of oil, within which all of the oil weathers approximately uniformly.
5.3.1.1 Method and Assumptions, in Logistics Modeling for Batch Spills
Modeling Method. The performance of different dispersant application platforms have been
estimated using simple spreadsheet models which calculate the ability ofthe platforms to transport
dispersant to spill sites from their bases ofresuppJy and spray them on the target slicks. Dispersants
are applied in a series of sorties in which a loaded spray platform departs its base, travels to the spill
site, sprays its dispersant, returns to base, is fe-supplied with dispersant and fuel and then continues
the sortie cycle. The platform executes one sortie after another until either the oil has been fully
treated and dispersed or has become too viscous to be dispersible. The spreadsheet model keeps
track ofthe length oftime required for each sortie, the amount of dispersant applied in each scenario
and changes in the amount and properties of oil present. The duration of each sortie, a critical
element in these calculations, is a function ofthree variables as follows.
-88-
009027
1) Transit time. The time required for the platform to travel from its base of operations to the
spill site. It is a function of distance and transit speed.
2) Spraying time. Time required for spraying dispersant includes both the actual time spraying
and the time needed to reposition between spraying passes. It is a function of the payload,
dispersant pumping rate, spraying speed and the length, width and thickness ofthe slick, as
well as the repositioning time.
3) Resupply time. Time required to resupply with dispersant and fuel between sorties.
Modeling Assumptions. The following assumptions were used in the logistic modeling.
1) Start-up Time. This is the time required to prepare the platform to respond and to actually
depart for the spill site. Start-up times are platform-specific, as previously discussed. All
platforms are assumed to have a start-up time of one hour. This is reasonable for some, but
not others. The operational implications of differences in start-up time between platforms are
dealt with in the discussion.
2) Dispersant Effectiveness. Operational measures of dispersant effectiveness reported in the

literature range from 75 parts oil dispersed per 1 part dispersant sprayed to as little as 1: 1.
These are values based on actual spills and field trials. For purposes ofthis study, it has been
assumed that the intrinsic effectiveness ofthe dispersant is I :20. That is that twenty volumes
of oil are dispersed for each volume of dispersant that is sprayed.
3) Viscosity Limit for Dispersant Effectiveness. There is no single point at which weathered oil
becomes completely resistant to chemical dispersion. One accepted rule
o~ thumb
is that
dispersibility is largely determined by viscosity, and that the transition point between
dispersibility and non-dispersibility lies in the range of2000 to 20,000 cP, depending on the
dispersant used, oil type and other factors. For purposes ofthis study we have assumed that
the viscosity threshold for dispersibility is 5000 cPo
-89-
009028
It is important to note that the oil types in this study become highly viscous because the oil
emulsifies and not because the oil itself becomes highly viscous through evaporation. It is the
viscosity of the emulsion that is the problem, not the viscosity of the oil in the emulsion. In
subsequent tables in this report where data are presented on the "oil remaining on the surface" after a
certain period oftime, in all cases this refers to the volume of oil contained in the emulsion that has
formed. The volume ofthe emulsion can be several times larger than the volume of the oil itself.
Grouping of Scenarios. For purposes of discussion, the spill scenarios are divided into three groups,
based on the behavior of the oil.
1) Low Emulsifying Spills. These. spills (Scenarios la, Ib and 2a) involve oils which do not
emulsify or which emulsify very slowly (Lo-E, No-E oils). They do not form highly viscous
stable emulsion before the oils dissipate completely, within a few hours or days, by natural
means, as summarized in Table 5-12. In the present study, low emulsifying spills from the
six selected launch points in the Gulf of Mexico pose very little risk of shoreline
contam ination because they dissipate before they reach the shoreline. Scenario 2a is analyzed
below as being representative of these scenarios.
2) Medium Emulsifying Spi1ls. These kinds of spills (e.g., Scenario 2b) involve oils which
emulsify at a moderate rate (Av-E oils), forming highly viscous, stable emulsions. The slicks
can become highly persistent, lasting for many days. The Scenario 2b spill, if not dispersed,
poses a serious threat of shoreline contamination from all launch sites, with the possible
exception of the Deepwater offshore spill location. Fortunately, the spill requires several
days to emulsify to high viscosities, thus providing a lengthy time window in which to mount
dispersant operations.
3) High Emulsifying Spills. These spills (Scenarios 2c and 3) involve oils which emulsifY
quickly to form highly viscous, stable emulsions. These slicks are highly persistent and pose
a serious threat of shoreline contamination for all spills from a]] launch sites, with the
possible exception of the Deepwater offshore spill location. Oils in scenarios 2c and 3
-90-
009029
become resistant to dispersion within only a few hours after being spined and offer only a
very brief time window for dispersant operations.
5.3.1.2 Response Capabilities for Batch Spills
The estimated response capabilities of dispersant spraying platforms are assessed here, starting with
the case of medium emulsifYing spills.
Response to Medium Emulsifying Spills
The capabilities of the platforms can be seen most clearly in spills ofthis group (Scenario 2b), which
emulsifY slowly and have a lengthy time window for dispersant operations. The persistence of the
spill ifleft untreated and the impact of a dispersant operation using a single DC-4 application system
are compared in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Fate and Persistence of Oil:

Scenario 2b DC-4 at 30 n.miles from base
e:;;
CIl
3500
3000
c:
2500
'iii
2000
1500
"E
'0
'0
QI
e
1000
500
0
24
72
48
96
120
Time Since Spill (hours)
-Chemically Dispersed
-91-
-Without Dispersion
144
009030
This scenario involves a batch spill of 3180 m 3 (20,000 barrels) of Av-E oil. If left untreated, the
slick initially dissipates relatively quickly, losing approximately 66% of its volume through
weathering over the first 48 hours. The 1080 m3 of oil that remains at this point has become highly
emulsified and viscous, and persists for many, many days. In the chemically-treated case, the volume
of the spill declines more quickly than the untreated spill during the first 12-hours. This reflects the
effect of dispersant spraying during the 12 hours of daylight on the first day. The rate of dissipation
is slower during the subsequent 12 hours of darkness when dispersant operations are suspended, but
increases again when dispersant operations begin at dawn on the second day.
Operations continue until all ofthe oil is dispersed early on the third day. In this hypothetical spill of
3180 m3 (840,000 gal1ons) of oil, the DC-4 system delivers 113 m 3 (30,000 gallons) of dispersant to
the spill in 12 sorties over 3 days. The slick is fully dispersed, with approximately 2260 m3 ofthe
spilled oil being chemically dispersed and the remainder dissipating through evaporation and natural
dispersion.
Table 5-13 summarizes the results of all logistic simulations with all platforms in Scenario 2b. In this
scenario, the performance of each platform is reflected by the amount of oil remaining at the end of
the dispersant application time window (the 72-hour mark in this scenario). The general dispersant
delivery/spraying capacities of these platforms are compared in Table 5-14. The performances of
each platform are described below.
1) C-130/ADDS Pack. A single C-130/ADDS Pack can fully treat this spill within the time
window at all three operating distances (assuming a start-up time of one hour). Even
allowing for a more reasonable startup time (delay in startup until the morning ofthe second
day), this platform has sufficient delivery capacity to deal fully with this spill. Based on this
simulation, the C-130/ADDS Pack can deliver and spray from 42 to 83 m3 (11000 to 22000
gallons) of dispersant per 12-hour day in 2 to 4 sorties at operating distances of30 to 300 nm
(Table 5-14).
2) DC-4. The DC-4 system appears to have the capacity to deal with this spill at the shorter
operating distances, but falls short at the 300 mile distance, due to its smaller payload than
009031
Table 5-13 Perfonnance ofplatfonns on low emulsifying batch spills. Example- scenario 2b
Volume of Oil Remaining, m
Platfonn
No Dispersion
Operating
Distance
24
48
216 720
0
72
96
n.mi.
hours hours hours hours hours hours hours
3180 2446 2078 1979 1930 1790 1518
C-130 with ADDS Pack
30
100
300
3180 1240
3180 1680
3180 2127
C-130/ADDS Pack with
30
100
300
30
100
300
30
100
300
30
30
100
0
3180 2446 272
0
0
0
0
0
0
3180 2446 702
0
0
0
2446
1093
3180
0
0
0
0
1971 295
0
0
0
2162 666
0
0
0
2068 1131 465 416 276
4
2068 1246 767 719 579 307
2219 1548 1146 1097 957 685
2294 1700 1449 1400 1260 998
0
0
1689 413
0
0
2022 1169 707 658 518 246
2143 1412 1120 961 821 519
24-hour start-up time

DC-4
DC-3
DC-3; 2 units
AT-802
AT-802; 3 units
Helicopter
Helicopter,3 units
Vessel A
Vessel A at 1 n. mi.
Vessel D
a.
1645
2014
2256
1879
1879
2378
2378
1901
1885
7167
2446
30
100
30
100
1
30
100
1
30
100
300
0
0
291
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,378
0
0
0
0
1643 1355 1306 1166 894
886 257 208
68
0
0
0
0
886 257
1942 1843 1794 1449 1177
1942 1843 1794 1449 1177
0
920 344 295 155
0
174
0
0
0
456
0
0
0
0
989 839 790 739 467
Results reflect a single unit operating at maximum efficiency with a one-hour start-up time,
unless otherwise noted. It is recognized that for a large spill operators would in all
likelihood use more than one platform operating concurrently in order to increase the
overall delivery capacity.
-93-
009032
Table 5-14 Dispersant spraying capacity of platforms at a distancea
Payload,
m3
Volume of
dispersant
sprayed
per day,
m3
Volume
ofoit
dispersed
per dai>,
m3
4
3
2
20.8
20.8
20.8
83.2
62.4
41.6
1664
1248
832
30
100
300
5
4
3
7.S
7.5
7.5
37.8
30.3
22.7
750
606
454
DC-3 (e)
30
100
300
5
3
2
4.6
4.6
4.6
23.1
13.9
9.2
462
277
185
AT-802
30
100
7
5
3.0
3.0
21
15
420
300
Helicopter
1
30
30
11
0.9
0.9
27
9.9
540
198
Vessel A
1
30
100
9
2
1
3.4
3.4
3.4
30.6
6.8
3.4
612
136
68
Vessel D
30
100
300
1
1
0.5
75.7
75.7
75.7
60.6
60.6
30.3 ,
1211
1211
605.5
Platform
Operating
Distance
n. mi.
Number
of sorties
per day
C-130/ADDS Pack (c)
30
100
300
DC-4 (d)
a. Based on response a batch spill 00180 m~ (20,000 barrels).

b. Assuming 20 volumes of oil are dispersed per 1 volume of dispersant sprayed.
c. ADDS Pack specifications as per Biegert Aviation: Maximum Reservoir Capacity = 5500
gallons (20.8 cu. m.), Recommended Capacity = 5000 gallons (18.9 cu.m.).
d. Values reported in literature for payload ofDC-4 range from 2000 to 2500 gallons (7.5 to 9.5
cu.m.). Value used here is 2000 as per ASI, Huoma, LA.
e. Values in literature for payload of DC-3 range from 1000 to 1200 gallons. Value used here is
1200 gallons, as per AS I, Huoma, LA.
-94-
009033
the C-130. The DC-4 can deliver and spray from 29 to 48 m 3 (7600 to 12600 gallons) of
dispersant per 12-hour day in 3 to 5 sorties at operating distances of30 to 300 nm (Table 514).
3) DC-3. A single DC-3 system cannot deal fully with this spill. It reduces the spill volume by
nearly 60 percent at the 30-mile operating distance, but has only a modest impact at the
longer distances. However, two DC-3 spray systems appear to have the capacity to treat the
spill within the time window at an operating distance ono miles. A single DC-4 can deliver
and spray from 7 to 19 m 3 (2000 to 5000 gallons) of dispersant. per 12-hour day in 2 to 5
sorties at operating distances of 30 to 300 nm (Table 5-14).
4) The performance of a single Agtruck AT-802 appears to be similar to that ofthe DC-3 at the
shorter distances. The AT-802 cannot be used at longer distances due to limitations in range.
It appears that three AT-802 units working together can deal fully with this spill at the
shorter operating distances. A single AT-802 can deliver and spray from 15 to 21 m3 (4000
to 5500 gallons) of dispersant per 12-hour day in 5 to 7 sorties at operating distances of30 to
100 nm (Table 5-14).
5) The helicopter, due to its small payload, can disperse only a portion of this spill, even at the
shortest operating distance ono miles. The limited range of helicopters prevents them from
operating at longer distances from the spill. The helicopter, however, has the advantage of
being able to be re-supplied from an offshore base near the spill. This improves the platform
performance, but not enough to completely disperse this spill within the time window. A
single helicopter can spray from 9 to 27 m3 (2000 to 7000 gallons) of dispersant per 12-hour
day in 11 to 30 sorties at operating distances of 1 to 30 nm (Table 5-14).
6) The Vessel A system can disperse only a small portion of this spill, even at the short
operating distance ono miles. The vessel's slow transit speed limits itto only one sortie per
day. This combined with a small payload of 3.4 m3 (900 gallons) of dispersant means that
this platform can treat only a very small proportion of the spill within the time window. Resupplying this platform at scene can greatly increase it performance allowing it to complete
-95-
009034
up to nine sorties within the window of opportunity (or approximately 30.7 m3 [8100
gallons] of dispersant per day). Although this allows the platform to greatly reduce the
volume of oil present, it is not sufficient to completely disperse the spill. Significant
improvements to the vessel's capability could be effected by greatly increasing the vessel's
dispersant storage capacity. This is discussed later.
The high capacity Vessel D system can fully disperse this spill at both the 30- and 100-mile
distances. This performance is due to enhancement of all of the logistically critical aspects of
performance including payload, vessel speed, pumping rate and swath width. The vessel cannot fully
treat the spi1l at the 300-mile distance, because even at top speed of25 knots the vessel requires 24
hours to perform the round trip to base for re-supply. Therefore at this distance its effective delivery
capacity is reduced to less than one-half of its payload per day.
The differences in logistic performance among platforms and the effect of operating distance on
performance are summarized in Table 5-14. Using the 30-mile response distance as a common
denominator, this summary shows that dispersant delivery capacities of these platforms vary by a
factor of 12, between the lowest, Vessel A, at 6.8 m3 of dispersant sprayed per day, to the C-130
ADDS Pack at 83.2 m3 per day. In other words, 12 vessels similar to Vessel A would be required to
deliver as much dispersant in a day as one C-130/ADDS Pack. Similarly, the C-130/ADDS Pack can
deliver as much dispersant as 1.4 Vessel D systems, two DC-4s, four DC-3s, four AT-802s, and nine
helicopter systems. Since both helicopter and vessel systems have the advantage of being re-supplied
at the spill site, thus avoiding the necessity oftraveling to their base of operations, their performance
can be improved by factors of2.7 (helicopter) and 4.5 (vessel),
One of the vessels considered here, Vessel A, was typical of the type of vessel available for
dispersant spraying in the Gulf until recently. The new larger, faster vessels with very high potential
payloads have only recently been added to the responder fleet. These new vessels invite responders
to reassess the use of vessels for dispersant application in the Gulf, particu larly for spills from MMSOCS facilities.
-96-
009035
It is important to note that a number of AT-802 aircraft units are available for immediate response in
the Gulf area, and these could be used in a coordinated fashion to achieve the delivery capacity
needed in a large spill. On the other hand, only a few ofthe large fixed-wing platforms are available.
Only one each of the DC-4 and DC-3 systems are currently available through Airborne Support Inc.
of Houma, LA. Although a number ofC-130 Hercules aircraft are available from various sources,
only two ADDS Pack spray systems are available in the continental U.S. Obviously, the smaJI
number of large, fixed-wing systems could be used in combination to respond to a large spill.
The distance between the base of re-supply and the spi1J site has an important effect on performance.
By increasing the operating distance from 30 miles to 100 miles, as would be the case in responding
to spiHs in mid-shelf areas, the capacities of platforms are reduced to 50 to 75 percent of their
capacities at 30 miles. In addition, the helicopter system would not be an option for responses at 100
miles because its range is too limited. By further increasing the operating distance to 300 miles, as
would be the case in responding to offshore spills in the Gulf, delivery capacities of platforms are
further reduced to 40 to 60 percent of their capacities at 30 miles. The vessel-based and AT-802
systems are not useful at a distance of300 miles. This 600-mile round-trip is beyond the 500-mile
range ofthe AT-802. Also, this round-trip could not be performed by any existing response vessel in
24 hours given their top speed of 5 to 7 knots.
A number of considerations must be borne in mind in connection with the above logistic modeling.
First, the performance characteristics of all platforms depend, in part, on the size and shape of the
slick. This determ ines the numbers oftimes that the platform will need to reposition itselfduring the
spraying operation. Efficiencies wi1l be lower for smaller spills where platforms will spend a greater
proportion of their time repositioning.
Second, the above assumes a start-up time of one hour for aJ] platforms. This will be reasonable for
certain platforms, such as the ASI DC-4 or the vessel-based system, but not for non-dedicated
s
platforms like the C-130 or the AgtruckAT-802. Members of the EADC are bound by contract to
have a start-up time of no more than 4 hours, so their performance on the first day must be corrected
8 The Emergency Aerial
Dispersants Consortium is an organization, based in Tynan, Texas, whose members are AT -802
aircraft operators trained and available to apply dispersants.
-97-
009036
accordingly. At present in the Gulfarea there are no dedicated C-130/ADDS Pack systems. At least
two ADDS Pack spraying units are available in the area, but it appears few C-130 Hercules aircraft
are available on a commercial basis to fly them. Many hours or even days may be required to locate
suitable aircraft to fly the ADDS Pack. Arrangements are in place to involve the USCG in this work.
Even though this process can be initiated quickly, it appears that many hours will be needed to
reconfigure the USCG aircraft, install the ADDS Pack and fly to the spill site. A conservative
estimate ofthe start-up time of for the C-130IADDS Pack would be the morning ofthe second day.
It is useful to recognize, however, that if a DC-4 system were to begin responding atthe start of Day
1 and a C-1301ADDS system were to begin on the morning of Day 2, the C-130 would catch up with
the DC-4 by the end of Day 2 (see Table 5-13).
Response to Low Emulsifying Spills

Spills involving non-persistent oils (Scenarios la, 1b, and 2a,), dissipate quickly, by natural means,
within a few hours or days. As illustrated in Figure 5.2 and Table 5-15, when these spills are treated
with dispersants, their persistence is further reduced, but the net change in the persistence ofthese
spills is small compared to spills involving medium or high emulsifYing oils.
Response to High Emulsifying Spills
The two spills in this category (Scenarios 2c and 3) emulsify very quickly and are undispersible
within 7 hours. This time window is too short to allow any platform to fully treat even the smaller of
these. Figure 5.3 illustrates the impact of dispersant application by C-130/ADDS Pack on oil
persistence in Scenario 2c. In this case, the C-1301ADDS Pack can complete two sorties within the
7-hour time window, applying 41.6 m3 and dispersing more than 800 m 3 of oil. This leaves over
1500 m3 of viscous persistent oil on the sea surface at the end of the operation. The results of model
runs with other platforms are summarized in Table 5-16. These show that all other platforms perform
less well than the C-130 IADDS Pack. In many cases, the time window is so short that oil is
undispersible by the time the spray platform arrives on scene, and increasing the number of units
does little to increase the response capability. A notable exception is the hypothetical case of a
response using three C-130s (see Figure 5.4). This however, is highly unrealistic for several reasons.
-98-
009037
It is interesting to note that three helicopter units operating from a base near the spill yielded a
performance similar to that of a single C-130 operating from a distance of 30 miles. This highlights
the potential value of staging dispersant resources, even low capacity ones like helicopters or
vessels, near potential spill sites.
The results of Scenario 3 are similar to Scenario 2c, except that even a smaller proportion ofthe spill
can be treated. dissipation is slower during the subsequent 12 hours of darkness when dispersant
operations are suspended, but increases again when dispersant operations begin at dawn on the
second day.
-99-
009038

Scenario 2a: DC-4 at 30 n.mi. from Base
3500
1::i
3000
.eI:n
2500
c
C
';j
=s
0
GI
\"'
\
2000
1500
',-
1000
;g=
-.~
...."
500
...
..........
r\.
-........
\.
24
Time Window> 120 hours
r..............
-...... r---...
96
72
48
f--
144
120
-Treated
Untreated Spill
Table 5-15 Performance of platforms on batch spills oflow emulsifYing oils. Example- scenario 2a
Platform
Operating
Volume of Oil Remainin~, m 3
Distance
24
216 720
0
48
72
96
n.mi.
hours hours hours hours hours hours hours
No Dispersion
DC-4
DC-3
Agtruck AT-802
HelolHelibucket
Vessel A
30
100
300
30
100
300
30
100
300
30
100
300
30
100
300
30
100
300
1
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
n/a
n/a
2254
589
1031
1466
1316
1507
1661
1870
1928
2290
1831
1957
2073
2046
n/a
n/a
2057
1868
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n/a
nla
1734
0
0
0
0
38
645
901
1166
1729
837
1075
1442
1325
nfa
nfa
1855
1230
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
360
1225
0
208
757
594
n/a
nfa
1283
726
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
721
0
0
71
0
n/a
n/a
711
805
a. Results represent a single unit operating with a one-hour start-up time, unless otherwise noted.
-100-
009039

Scenario 2c: C-i30 with ADDS Pack
at 30 n.mi. from Base
3500
3000
"\
2500
2000
'"
1500
1000
Time Window = 1 hours
SOO
'0
24
72
48
96
120
1-Untreated
Chemically-Treated

Scenario 2c: C-i30 with ADDS Pack
at 30 n.mi. from Base (3 units)
~e
01
~E
~
is
'0
ell
3500
3000
2500
2000
l'--..
\
\
\
\
1500
1000
500
0
Time Window = 1 hours
24
72
48
1-Untreated
-Chemically-Treated
-101-
96
120
009040
Table 5-16 Performance platforms on batch spills of high emulsifying oils. Example- scenario 2c
Platform
Volume of oil remaining, m3

Operating
216
0
24
48
72
96
Distance
hours hours hours hours hours hours
n.mi.
No Dispersion
30
100
300
C-130IADDS Pack-
30
24-hour start-up time
3180
3180
3180
3180
2438
1638
1638
2246
2346
1521
1521
2154
2289
1449
1449
2097
2245
1372
1372
2053
2097
1017
1017
1905
720
hours
1716
916
916
1524
no effective dispersion
DC-4
30
100
300
3180 1966 1863 1808 1764

3180 2060 1968 1910 1865
3180 2281 2157 2099 2054
1616
1718
1908
1235
1338
1527
DC-3
30
100
300
3180 2286 2194 2134 2093

3180 2285 2193 2140 2092
3180 2363 2271 2214 2170
1945
1943
2022
1564
1563
1641
AT-802
30
100
300
3180 2198 2106 2049 2005

3180 2258 2166 2109 2065
3180 2378 2686 2229 2185
1853
1917
2037
1476
1536
1656
AT-802; 3 units
30
3180 1718 1626 1569 1525
1397
996
Helicopter
30
1
3180 2325 22332 2176 2132

3180 2136 044 1987 1943
1984
1795
1603
1414
Helicopter; 3 units
30
1
3180 2097 2005 1948 1904

3180 1530 1438 1381 1337
1756
1190
1375
809
Vessel A
30,100,300
no effective dispersion
1443
1
3180 2165 2073 2016 1972 1824
-102-
009041
5.3.2 Blowouts
5.3.2.1 Main Considerations
A blowout is a continuous discharge of oil from a platform. Blowout slicks differ in several respects
from batch spills and present different challenges for responders. In a blowout, oil is discharged
continuously from a point source and the resulting slick is moved away from the spill site by winds
and currents. The slick can be visualized as a long, narrow ribbon of oil, stretching away from the
spill site, breaking up into patches until it finally dissipates through weathering and spreading.
Treating blowout slicks with dispersants involves certain tactical considerations including the
following.
1) Blowout slicks, shaped as long, narrow swaths, can be sprayed longitudinally, in a series of
long passes. For this reason treating blowouts may require less repositioning than with batch
spills and therefore may require less spraying time.
2) Oil from different parts of a blowout slick are of different states of weathering. Freshly
discharged oil near the spill site may be dispersible, while oil at a distance from the spill site
that has been discharged hours earlier, may already be weathered, emulsified and
undispersible. The overall effectiveness of a dispersant operation may depend on the degree
to which the operation is successful in dispersing the spilled oil while it is still fresh and
preventing it from weathering to the point of its becoming undispersible.
3) Blowout slicks, especially those from subsea blowouts, initially can be thinner and cover
much greater areas than batch spills. This has several implications for spill response. The
thinner slicks may weather and become heavily emulsified more quickly than the thicker
ones. Thin slicks may require lower than usual application rates (and therefore lower
pumping rates) in order to avoid overdosing. Lower pumping rates, while spraying over
larger areas, means longer spraying times and lower operational efficiency.
-103-
009042
5.3.2.2 Blowout Spill Model
A number of blowout scenarios are considered in evaluating the capabilities of different spraying
platforms. As with the batch spills, the scenarios cover a range of spill and response conditions,
including: spill volume; spill duration; emulsion tendency; and distance from base of resupply.
Blowout scenarios have been categorized differently from batch spills. Batch spill scenarios were
grouped only according to the emulsifying behavior of the oils. In blowout spills, the scenarios have
been categorized according to the speed with which emulsification takes place in the scenario,
regardless of the properties of the oil. This is because the rate of emulsification in blowout spills is
controlled by both the emulsification tendency of the oil and the conditions of the spill. A summary
of the persistence of the oil in blowout scenarios is presented in Table 5~17.
Similar to the batch spills, there are three basic kinds of oils considered in the blowout scenarios that
relate to the oil's potential for emulsifying. One category involves low emulsifying oils in which the
oil dissipates completely before it becomes highly emulsified and viscous (e.g., Scenario 4a).
The next category involves medium emulsifying oils in which the oil emulsifies slowly, taking more
than 12 hours to become highly viscous and resistant to chemical dispersion (Scenario Sb).
The final category involves spilled oil that emulsifies quickly and becomes highly viscous in less
than 12 hours. This group includes Scenarios 4b, Sa, 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a,7b and 7c. In the following
analysis most attention is devoted to this category.
~104~
009043
Table 5-17 Persistence of oil in blowout scenarios
Scenario
Number
Spill
Conditions
4a
Surface blowout,
5000 BOPD x 4 days
= 20,000 bbl
4b
Surface blowout
5000 BOPD x 4 days
= 20,000 bbl
Time on Volume of Oil Persisting at End

of Blowout, bbl (m 3)b
surface to
Emulsion
reach
Tendency viscosity
a
24 hours 96 hours
> 5000 cP, ohours
hours
>15
627
(99.8)
Av-E
11
14,467
(2300)
11,322
(1800)
7548
(1200)
5b
Surface blowout
100,000 BOPO x 14 days
=1,400,000 bbl
Av-E
23
6b
Subsurface blowout
5000 BOPO x 4 days
= 20,000 bbl
Av-E
4.5
9636
(1532)
8925
(1419)
6661
(1059)
7b
Subsurface blowout
7200 BOPD x 14 days
= 100,000 bbl
Av-E
4.5
32,613
(5185)
30,833
(4902)
25,468
(25,468)
Subsurface blowout,
Deepwater
= 9,000,000 bbl
a.
Lo-E
880,342 862,585
827,493
( 139,959) (137,136) (131,557)
uncertain
Av-E
This is the time after the end of the blowout.
b. b. This oil is part of an emulsion, which can have four times the volume of the
-- -
--
-105-
009044
5.3.2.3 Method of Logistics Modeling for Blowout Spills
As was done with the batch spills, the performance of different dispersant spraying platforms is
evaluated using simple spreadsheet models. However, the logistics model for blowout spills is far
more complicated.
As was done with the batch spills, the quantity of dispersant sprayed during each sortie and the time
required for each sortie is computed. The start-up times, transit times, spraying times, re-supply
times and the volume of dispersant sprayed per sortie are tracked on a sortie-by-sortie basis. Since
the spill is ongoing, the volumes of oil that are spilled and the amount that becomes undispersibJe
during each sortie interval are tracked, as well as the amounts lost to weathering and chemical
dispersion. The assumptions described above regarding start-up times, dispersant effectiveness, and
yiscosity limits for effective dispersion apply to the blowout spills as well.
5.3.1.4 Response Capabilities for Blowout Spills
Response to Low Emulsifying Spills
Only Scenario 4a applies to this kind of oil. The oil spilled in this scenario is not persistent,
dissipating completely within 24 hours after the discharge ceases, even without chemical dispersion ..
The oil is not persistent enough to travel any distance from the spill site, so these spills pose
environmental risks only in the immediate vicinity ofthe spiH. Most spraying platforms are capable
of delivering enough dispersant to completely disperse slicks from these spills in a single sortie.
However, chemical dispersion does little to alter the already low persistence of this oil and so this
scenario is not discussed further.
Response to High Emulsifying Spills
The scenarios involving high emulsifying oils are the most interesting and edifYing. These spills
emulsifY in less than 12 hours due to the combination of emulsifYing tendency and spill conditions.
Scenario 4b is the simplest of these scenarios and is discussed first.
-106-
009045
In Scenario 4b (surface blowout discharging Av-E oil at 3180 m3/day) the oil becomes heavily
emulsified to the point of being undispersible within 10 hours after discharge. A total of 3180 m 3
(20,000 bbl) of oil is spilled over four days at a rate of 33.1 m 3Ihr (208.3 bbllhr). In the absence of
treatment, 2300 m3 (72%) ofthis oil remains on the sea surface at the end ofthe spill, in the form of
highly emulsified, persistent oil. This emulsified oil dissipates only slowly.
Figure 5.5 illustrates the way in which the model handles the fate of oil a,nd the effect of dispersant
application during a blowout spill. In this case, the spraying involves a DC-4 and the spill site is 30
miles from its base. The figure shows that on the first day of the spill, the spray platform disperses
all ofthe oil discharged. However, when spraying operations are suspended overnight the spilled oil
accumulates on the sea surface. By dawn of Day
~,
a portion of the oil spilled overnight has
weathered to the point of being undispersible. On Day 2, the DC-4 system is capable of treating any
overnight oil that remains dispersible, as well as all of the fresh oil discharged during the day. For
the duration of the spill, the DC-4 treats all of the dispersible oil discharged during the day, but
quantities of un dispersible oil accumulate each night. When the discharge ceases after 4 days, a total
of 250 m3 of weathered, undispersible oil remains. This represents approximately 10% of the
emulsified oil that remained at the end ofthe spill in the untreated case. The dispersant operation has
reduced the volume of persistent oil remaining at the end ofthe spill from 2300 m3 to 250 m 3.
Figure 5.5 Fate and Persistence of Oil

Scenario 4b: DC-4 at 30 miles
-.400
~:I
..
350
~ 300
/ \ / \..
/ \ I,/ _\ /,
/\ II,/ ..\
I ~ .L
II ~ / \ / \ /
=
250
f
D.
";;;
200
(5 150
'0
~ 100
.a
~
50
'I
o
o
;--..., ~
..
r-..,
-~ h
~~
\ II \ I \ I 1
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
Time (hours)
-Total Fresh Oil
--Total Oil Present
-107-
.... 'Total Undispersible
009046
The simulated performance data for all platforms in Scenario 4b are summarized in Table 5-18.
When platforms are compared over a common operating distance of 30 miles, the platforms with
smal1er payloads (e.g., helicopter, vessel) are less effective overall than the larger platforms (e.g.,
DC-4, or large vessel "D"), in that they leave a larger amount of emulsified oil at the end ofthe spill
(see the 120-hour column in Table 5-18).
Howeyer, the differences between effectiveness oflarge and small platforms are less pronounced in
the blowout spill than in the batch spill of the same size and oil type (Scenario 2b). Also, unlike the
batch spill, the operating distanc.e has less influence on the efficiency ofthe larger platforms (DC-4,
C-130), although it does on the smaller platforms. This is shown in Table 5-19 Part A. In a blowout
with a relatively low discharge rate, like Scenario 2b, the payload ofa large spray platform, like the
DC-4, exceeds the volume needed to treat the oil discharged during the sortie. That is during most if
-
not all sorties that sprays only a portion of its load and returns to base with some dispersant still on
board. This is not the case for the smaller platforms. Similarly, the additional time needed to travel to
more distant spills does not diminish the efficiency of the larger platforms because the larger
platforms have excess payload capacity on every sortie and can compensate for the longer duration
of each sortie at greater distances by spraying a larger proportion of their payload on each sortie.
This suggests that during small blowout spills, the larger platforms need carry only a fraction oftheir
payload.
The large vessel "D" also has excess capacity and is efficient for this spiJI at distances of30 and 100
miles. It is, hpwever, highly inefficient at the 300-mile distance. With a payload of20,000 gallons,
this platform has more than enough payload to treat all ofthe oil discharged in a single day, but not
enough for two days' spillage. As a result the vessel must return to base nightly for re-supply, even
though its tanks are nearly one-half full. At the 30- and 1OO-mile distances, the vessel can complete
the round-trip to base for re-supply each day and still have enough time to treat any overnight
discharge that remains dispersible, as well as all of the oil discharged during the daylight hours. The
vessel is inefficient in the 300-mile distance because even at a speed of25 knots, it would require
more than on full, 24-hour day to complete the 600-mile round-trip to base for re-supply. At a
distance of 300-mile it would begin spraying only on the morning of the 2nd day; would not spray
-108-
009047
Table 5-18 Effectiveness ofplatfonns on high emulsifying blowout spills. Example scenario 4b.
Volume of oil remaining, m'

Operating
Distance,
n.mi.
96
hoursb
120
hours
192
hours
720
hours
2300
1800
1200
30
30
100
300
270
325
325
230
275
275
140
165
165
0
0
0
DC-4
30
100
300
370
470
470
250
380
380
130
210
210
0
0
0
Agtruck
AT-802
30
100
950
1200
600
850
380
520
0
20
720
1350
480
1240
280
680
0
20
780
1520
460
1240
280
720
361
361
361
1979
252
252
252
1687
141
141
141
1113
0
20
0
0
0
0
20
Platfonn
No Chemical Dispersion
Helicopter
Vessel A
30
1
30
1
Vessel B
30
100
300
b. Time is from the start of the blowout. This blowout lasts 96 hours in total.
-109-
009048
Table 5-19 Dispersant spraying characteristics of platforms in selected blowout spills (4b and 6b)
Platform
Operating
distance,
n. mi.
Sorties
per
day
Payload,
m3
Average
volume
sprayed
per sortie,
m3
Maximum
pump
rate,
m 3/min.
Observed
pump
rate,
3
m /min.
Volume of
dispersant
sprayed per
day,
m3
Part A: Scenario 4b
C-J30
30
100
300
9
6
4
20.8
20.8
20.8
4.09
5.82
9.30
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.27
36.8
43.9
37.2
DC-4
30
100
300
9
6
4
7.5
7.5
7.5
4.00
5.63
7.5
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
36.0
33.7
30.0
Agtruck
AT-802
30
100
9
6
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
.45
.45
.45
.45
27.3
18.2
Helicopter
1
30
35
13
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
.30
.30
.30
.30
33.25
11.96
Vessel
A
1
30
8
1
3.41
3.41
3.41
3.41
.45
.45
.45
.45
27.3
3.41
30
100
300
1
1
0.5
75.7
75.7
75.7
75.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
.22
.22
.22
75.7
.22
.22
.22
.22
.22
39.7
39.7
39.7
75.7
Vessel
D
Part B: Scenario 6b
C-130
30
100
300
6
5
3
20.8
20.8
20.8
4.09
5.82
9.30
2.27
2.27
2.27
.39
.39
.39
29.6
2S.S
23.3
DC-4
30
100
300
5
5
6
7.5
7.5
7.5
4.00
5.63
8.97
1.89
1.89
1.89
.44
.44
.44
29.3
2S.3
23.1
Agtruck
AT-S02
30
100
7
5
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
.45
.45
.32
.32
21.2
15.5
1
30
19
12
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
.30
.30
.11
.11
IS. 1
11.4
1
30
6
1
3.41
3.41
3.41
3.41
.45
.45
.07
.07
20.46
3.41
Helicopter
Vessel
A
-110-
:/
009049
on the 3rd day at all because it would be in transit and would spray again on the 4th day. These
inefficiencies could be overcome by re-supplying this platform at sea.
It is important to emphasize that, as far as the larger platforms are concerned. the fact that weathered
oil still persists at the end of the spill (as in this scenario), does not indicate that the dispersant spray
system does not have the capacity to treat the oil. On the contrary, the larger platforms have more
than enough capacity to treat a blowout ofthis rate. The weathered, persistent oil that remains at the
end ofthe spill is oil that is spilled at night when dispersant operations are suspended and weathers
to an undispersible state before dispersant operations are re-initiated at dawn. In these cases, adding
additional platforms cannot increase the effectiveness of the operation.
The result of this scenario suggests that for blowouts oflow discharge rate, it may be cost-effective
to respond with smaller platforms matching the platform capacity to the demands of the spill.
Scenario 6b is a 5000 BOPD subsea blowout of Av-E oil lasting 4 days. The spill is similar in many
respects to Scenario 4b, except that in Scenario 6b the slick is much wider and thinner than in 4a.
One important observation from an environmental and operational perspective is that it much larger
amount of the spill persists after the dispersant operations in 6b (see Table 5-20) than in 4b. There
are two causes for this. First, the 6b slick is much thinner (0.04 to 0.08 mm) than the 4b slick (0.4 to
0.8 mm).1t is so thin that it would be greatly overdosed with dispersants by all platforms, even the
aircraft, if they were to use their maximum spray settings, as was done in 4b. Therefore, in Scenario
6b the pump rates have been reduced, by 50 to 80 percent, depending on the platform, to yield a
suitable dispersant application rate (See Table 5-19 Part B). The net effect is an increase in spraying
time, a reduction in sorties per day, and thus a reduction in volume of dispersant sprayed in all cases.
Second, the 6b slick emulsified much more quickly than the 4b spill, reaching the 5000 cP threshold
within 4.5 hours, as opposed to II hours in the 4b scenario. The more rapid emulsification in
Scenario 6b results in a greater proportion ofthe oil discharged overnight becoming undispersible,
leading to a larger amount of viscous, persistent oil being present at the end of the spill. Both factors
clearly contribute to the lower operational efficiency in dispersing this spill.
-111-
009050
Table 520 Operational effectiveness of platfonns on blowout spill, scenario 6b

Platfonn a
Distance,
n. mi.
Volume of oil remaining at during spill, m3

96
hoursb
120
hours
192
hours
384
hours
1532
1419
1059
100
30
100
300
841
904
813
728
793
702
368
433
314
0
0
0
DC-4
30
100
300
880
938
844
412
465
371
0
0
0
Agtruck
AT-802
30
100
875
1056
761
943
401
583
0
0
Helicopter
1
30
810
943
730
630
350
470
0
0
Vessel A
1
30
852
1512
748
1401
435
1241
0
0
772
825
731
b. Time .from the start of the blowout. This blowout lasts 96 hours.
-112-
009051
Scenario 7b is similar to 6b in some respects, but it is five times larger with a longer duration and
greater discharge rate. The net result ofthe higher discharge rate and longer spill duration is greater
amounts of persistent oil remaining at the end ofthe discharge in both the untreated and dispersanttreated cases (Table 5-21). Although the DC-4 and C-130 have the theoretical capacity to fully
disperse all of the oil as it is discharged during the day, the amount of oil that is discharged overnight
exceeds their capacity to catch up. Furthermore, because of the size of the spill, the effects of
operating distance and difference in payload between the DC-4 and C-130 become evident.
Response to Medium Emulsifying SpiJIs
This group of scenarios is includes those in which the oil requires longer than 12 hours to emulsify.
Scenario 5b is the only one of this type in this study. It involves a very high discharge rate of 15,898
m 3 (100,000 BOPD) of Av-E oil for 14 days for a total discharge of222,575 m 3 (1,400,000 barrels).
It requires 18 hours for the oil to emulsify to an undispersible level. In the absence of chemical
dispersion almost 140,000 m3 of oil (in the form of a viscous emulsion) will have accumulated by
the end of the blowout and this oil persists for many days (Table 5-17).
The discharge rate ofthis blowout greatly exceeds the capacity of even the largest spraying platform,
so a single unit of even the largest platform can treat only a portion of the amount spilled daily. The
remainder will weather and form emulsion that will persist long after the spill has ended. Table 5-22
shows that even the largest platforms are only partly effective in treating this spill. Also, as expected,
effectiveness is a function of payload and operating distance. Table 5-22 also shows that,
theoretically speaking, three C-130/ADDS Pack units could fully disperse this large spill. This
delivery rate is unrealistically high, but the example is used to demonstrate that, unlike the Group C
scenarios, Group B spills can be fully treated if the dispersant delivery rate is high enough. The
difference is that the time window for Group B spilJs is longer than 12 hours. Under these
conditions, all of the oil that is spilled over night will remain dispersible for at least a few hours past
dawn, when dispersant operations can resume.
-113-
009052
Table 5-21 Operational effectiveness ofplatfonns on blowout spills, scenario 7b

Sorties
per day
Dispersant
sprayed
per sortie,
m3
Volume of oil remaining at during spill, m 3

Platform3
Distance,
n. mi.
336
hoursb
360
hours
432
hours
720
hours
5185
4902
4049
639
30
100
300
1297
1532
2555
10]2
1247
2270
160
394
1417
0
0
0
6
5
3
6.1
7.5
9.1
30
100
300
1897
1971
2714
16]2
1665
2433
760
834
1580
0
'0
0
DC-4
5
3
6.0
7.0
8.9
Helicopter
1
30
1554
2695
1271
2412
418
1558
nd C
nd
. 23
I 12
0.95
0.95
Vessel A
J
30
3370
4875
3085
4620
2232
3767
nd
nd
6
1
3.41
3.41
b. Time from the start of the blowout. This blowout lasts 14 days or 336 hours.
c. nd = no data
Table 5-22 Operational effectiveness of platfonns on blowout spills, scenario 5b
Platform
Distance,
n. mi.
C-130/ADDS
Pack, 3 units
DC-4
Volume of oil remaining at during

spill, m3
336
hoursb
360
hours
408
hours
139959
137136
131557
Dispersant
sprayed
per sortie,
m3
Sorties
per day
30
100
300
94934
109845
124656
89709
]05164
120908
82073
96744
113575
9
6
3
20.82
20.82
20.82
30
100
300
9513
51227
80010
0
43795
73518
0
42094
69446
18
12
8
62.46
62.46
62.46
30
100
300
119524
126304
130852
115444
122646
127473
107484
115469
120822
9
6
4
9.46
9.46
9.46
a Results represent a single unit operating with a one-hour start-up time, unless otherwise noted.
b Time from the start of the blowout This blowout last 14 days or 336 hours.
-114-
009053
Response to Deepwater Blowont
Although the behavior ofthe large, deepwater blowout scenarios (Scenarios 8a and 8b) is uncertain,
it is clear that such spills present great operational challenges for several reasons. First, a spill of this
large size would require at least 900 to 1300 barrels of dispersant per day to treat. This would
exhaust the dispersant stockpiles in the Gulf Region within 3-4 days and all the stockpiles in the U.S.
within 6 to 10 days. Dispersant manufacturers in the U.S. can produce dispersant at a rate of 44,000
gallons per day (1047 barrels per day), which would be just enough dispersant to treat this spill, ifit
were efficiently used. Second, these spills occur furthest from any base of operations. They are
beyond the operating range of all but platforms the large, fixed-wing aircraft systems (DC3s and 4,
C-130s). At this long distance, a spill of modest size, such as Scenario 2b, is beyond the capabilities
of all systems, except the C-1301ADDS Pack system. Theoretically, the 100,000-BOPD spill would
require, as a minimum, the combined efforts of the two DC-3s, the DC-4, the MIRG C-130/ADDS
Pack, plus at least two of the C-130/ADDS Pack systems from outside the Gulfregion. In practical
terms, because of unavoidable operational inefficiencies, such as the need for maintenance and
coordination far more logistics resources than these would be needed to ful1y treat a spill ofthis size.
5.5 Summary of Dispersant Delivery Capacity

1. In the batch spill scenarios the rate of emulsification exerts a very strong influence over
dispersion efficiency. In scenarios involving oils that have little tendency to emulsify, the oil
dissipates naturally within hours or days and the effect of dispersants is to reduce the persistence
of oil only slightly. In scenarios involving oils with a high tendency to emulsify, the time
windows are very short, approximately seven hours. For some platforms this allows time for one
or two sorties at most, while for others the time window is too brief to complete even a single
sortie. Most platforms had little impact on these scenarios. The systems with the largest payloads
(e.g., C-130) reduced the volume of persistent oil present by a few tens of percentage points in
only the smaller spill scenario (3180 m3 scenario).
2. The impact of dispersants is most evident in scenarios with oils that do emulsify, but also do
have a relatively long time window, up to 58 hours. In the smallest of these scenarios (Scenario
-115-
009054
2b, 3180 m 3), the platforms with the highest delivery capacities (C-130 and DCA) are capable of
dispersing the entire spill, but the smaller platforms are not. When the capacities of all platforms
to deliver dispersant over a 12-hour period and a 30-mile distance were compared to the C-130,
their relative performances would be as follows: DCA, 0.57 times the C-130, DC-3, 0.23;
Agtruck AT-802, 0.25; helicopter,0.12; Vessel A, 0.08 and Vessel D, 0.73.
3. Both helicopter and vessel systems have the advantage of being capable of being re-supplied at
the spill site, thus avoiding the necessity of traveling to their base of operations. By re-supplying
at the spill site, their performance can be improved by factors of2.7 (helicopter) and 4.5 (vessel).
The performance of these platforms relative to the C130, when supplied at site would be 0.32
and 0.36, respectively.
4. The distance from the spill site to the base ofre-supply influences performance. Increasing the
operating distance from 30 miles to 100 miles reduces performance of most platforms to 50 to 75
percent oftheir capacities at 30 miles. By increasing the operating distance to 300 miles, delivery
capacities are reduced to 40 to 60 percent of their capacities at 30 miles. The helicopter system
could not be used for responses at 100 miles, nor the AT-802 at 300 miles because of range
limitations.
5. Blowout spills present somewhat different logistic challenges for dispersant operations. As with
batch spills, the effects of dispersant use on oil fate in blowouts depends on the properties and
behavior of the oil. Blowouts of oils which do not emulsifY or which emulsifY very slowly, will
disperse quickly by natural means and dispersants may not affect their persistence greatly. Other
oils which emulsifY relatively quickly, can be strongly affected by dispersant operations.
6. Blowouts which emulsifY quickly cannot be fully dispersed because dispersant operations must
be suspended at night and a portion of the oil that is spil1ed overnight will emulsifY to
undispersible levels. When a blowout and batch spill of identical size (3180 m3) and oil type
(A v-E) are compared, the batch spill can be fully dispersed, but the blowout can not because of
the "overnight effect". The more quickly the oil emulsifies, the greater the proportion that will
become undispersible.
-116-
009055
7. When surface and subsea blowouts ofidentical size and oil type are compared, dispersion ofthe
subsea blowout is much less effective operationally than the surface blowout due to its larger
width, smaller oil thickness and more rapid emulsification.
8. Payload and operating distance control overall operational effectiveness in blowout spills as in
batch spills, but these influences are less evident when blowout rates are of the order of 5000
BOPD or less. At these discharge rates the larger platforms have excess capacity, and so their
logistic advantage over the smaller platforms are less pronounced.
117
009056
5.6 Targeting and Monitoring

Two additional challenges must be met to ensure that dispersant operations are efficient and that the
most effective use is made of time and resources. These are: 1) targeting, that is, selecting the most
appropriate part of the slicks to be sprayed; and 2) effectiveness monitoring, that is, verifYing that
the applied dispersant is indeed increasing the rate of dispersion of the slick. Both of these
indispensable tasks require skill and the use oftechnoiogy, as described below.
5.6.1 Targeting
Targeting refers to the task of assessing the slick and identifying the parts to be sprayed. This
decision process has been largely ignored in the past because dispersant spraying strategies were
'based on the premise that spills spread to form large slicks of known, uniform thickness. Dispersant
operations were assumed to involve spraying the large slick in a series of single passes in "carpetsweeping" fashion, until all of the slick had been sprayed. However, more recent, practical
experience has shown that slicks are not uniform in thickness, but rather are made up of relatively
small, thick patches of oil surrounded by large areas of very thin sheen. The vast majority of the oil
is contained in the thick patches. A rule of thumb is that the thick patches contain approximately
90% ofthe volume ofthe oil, but make up only 10% ofthe area. Indeed, the majority of the area of a
slick may be made up of sheen containing only a small proportion of the volume of the slick.
It is critically important that dispersant spraying operations target the thick portions of slicks and
avoid the thin portions for several reasons. First, sheens are so thin (only a few hundredths of a mm),
that even a single spray pass, at an application rate of 5 to 10 gallons of dispersant per acre, wilJ
greatly overdose the sheen. In addition, the sheen is so thin that droplets of dispersant spray will pass
completely through the sheen into the underlying water and will be lost without actually dispersing
the sUck. Both ofthese circumstances result in a waste of both valuable dispersant product and time.
The thick patches of oil can be distinguished from the sheen in at least two ways. The simplest
method is by visual observation from the air by an experienced observer. This method may not be
completely reliable under all conditions. A more dependable method is the use of airborne remote
-118-
009057
sensing using the UVfiR technique. This detection method detects the infrared radiation being
emitted by the slick patches of oil, the thin sheen and surrounding water. The thick patches can be
distinguished from the water and sheen because they are warmer. These methods allow the thick
patches to be distinguished from sheen, but they do not provide any information concerning slick
thickness. A variety of UVflR remote sensing systems are available and are in use for oil spill
response planning purposes. Once the targets have been selected, the spraying platform is directed to
them by marking them with suitable buoys or by identifying their position electronically.
5.6.2 Effectiveness Monitoring

In spill response, monitoring is conducted for a variety of reasons, but from an operational point of
view the most critical is effectiveness monitoring. The objective of this is to establish whether
dispersant application is being effective in increasing the rate of dispersion of the patch being
treated. Even though a slick may be amenable to dispersion early in the spill, it may become resistant
within a matter of hours or days through the processes of weathering and emulsification. Monitoring
will establish whether the target patch of oil continues to be dispersible over time. When a patch of
oil has clearly become resistant to chemical treatment, it is pointless to spend further time trying to
disperse it, and the operation should move on to target another patch of oil or to change spi1l control
strategies.
There are two approaches to effectiveness monitoring: 1) monitoring the rate of disappearance ofthe
treated slick, and 2) monitoring the concentration of oil that has been dispersed into the water. The
first approach involves observing the treated slick to determine whether or not it is disappearing
more quickly than a similar, untreated one. This is done by observing the treated slick from the air,
either visually or by remote sensing. At present, there does not appear to be an accepted, documented
approach for this kind of monitoring. However, there appears to be agreement among practitioners
that this type of monitoring is based on the judgment of a thoroughly trained and experienced
observer (MacLeod 1995).
The second approach involves observing andlor measuring oil in the water under slicks. This is done
either through visual observation from the air or by direct measurement of oil in the water using in119-
009058
situ fluorometry. Visual observation involves looking for the presence of a "coffee-with-cream"colored cloud of dispersed oj] droplets in the water in the vicinity of the treated slick (Lunel 1997).
This approach is not always reliable because the plume mayor may not be visible depending on a
variety offactors (e.g., lighting conditions). The more rigorous method involves directly measuring
the concentration of oil under slicks before and during treatment. This method makes use of the
differences in behavior between physically and chemically dispersed oil. When oil is being dispersed
physically, the dispersed oil is present in the water in modest concentrations in the form of large
droplets, which because of their buoyancy and large size, float very quickly to the sea surface and
seldom mix deeper into the water column than one meter. In the chemical1y dispersed case, oil is
present in higher concentrations in the form of very small droplets. The droplets do not resurface, but
remain in the water and are mixed quickly down to a depth of several meters.
Practitioners utilize at least two approaches to monitoring. One approach relies on differences in the
overall concentration of dispersed oil in the upper one meter of the water column under slicks. Oil
concentrations are measured in the water under the slick before and after treatment. The treatment is
considered to be effective if the concentration of dispersed oil under the treated slick is at least five
times greater than under the untreated slick. This approach is used by responders in the U.S., as
described in the protocols of "Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies" (SMART
2000). SMART is described more fully below. Another approach relies on differences in behavior
between chemically treated and untreated oil. Oil concentrations in the water under slicks are
measured simultaneously at two depths under the untreated and dispersed slick. Oil concentrations
should be elevated at the one-meter depth in both cases. Treatment is considered ineffective ifthe oil
concentrations decline sharply at depths below one meter, indicatingthatthe oil droplets in the water
column are large and are resurfacing quickly. Treatment is considered effective if oil concentrations
are elevated to depths of three to five meters, indicating that the droplets present are small and
readily mixed to greater depths (Lunel, 1997). Workers in the U.K favor this approach.
SMART or Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies program is a U.S. initiative to

develop monitoring protocols for spill control technologies, such as dispersants. It is a collaboration
of scientists and responders, the objective of which is to help provide managers with scientifically
based information on spill conditions. in real time, to assist in managing the response. SMART is an
-120-
009059
ongoing process, with procedures being revised on a regular basis as advancements occur. At
present, SMART calls for three levels of monitoring for dispersant operations:
Tier I is the most basic type of monitoring involves visual assessment of the rate of disappearance of
the slick or the appearance of chemically dispersed oil in the water column. This approach is
unreliable under certain conditions, so a more reliable though more involved approach (Tier II) is
used whenever possible.
Tier II involves combining visual observations with measurements ofthe 'concentrations of dispersed
oil in the water column under the center of the treated slick. The latter is performed using in-situ
fluorometry and involves measuring the oil concentrations at a depth of one metre in the water
column under the treated slick.
Tier III is a more involved procedure that verifies that the dispersed oil is indeed diluting as
predicted. This procedure involves measuring dispersed oil concentrations and several depths and
under different parts of the slick in order to collect information on transport and dispersion of oil in
the water column.
-121-
009060
6. Assessment of Factors Influencing Net Environmental

Benefit
6.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the environmental benefits and drawbacks of using dispersants to treat spills
from offshore facilities in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The balancing of benefits and losses is necessary
because dispersants do not remove the oil from the environment, but rather move it from the sea
surface into the water. While this reduces the risks posed by the spill to species at the sea surface and
at shorelines, it increases risks to in-water and seabed-dwelling species. Before using dispersants in
any given spill, it is critical to consider whether their benefits outweigh their drawbacks, that is,
whether they offer a net environmental benefit (NEB).
Section 6.2 that follows discusses methods for assessing the NEB of dispersant use and describes the
many factors that influence it. Section 6.3 considers the environmental impacts of spills and the
potential NEB associated with dispersant use in the Gulf, using the hypothetical spill scenarios
described in earlier sections.
6.2 Methods for Assessing Net Environmental Benefit for Dispersants

The role of dispersants, like other countermeasures, is to reduce the environmental impact of oil
spills. In any spill, the preferred method for ameliorating impact is recovering the spilled oil and
removing it from the sea. Unfortunately, in most incidents, only a small proportion of the spill can
actually be collected while the remaining oil escapes. This escaping oil poses an environmental
threat to organisms and human-use resources at the sea surface (marine birds, hairy mammals,
fishing gear), in intertidal areas (e.g., coastal marshes, amenity beaches) and in shallow sub-tidal
habitats (e.g., juvenile shrimp). Dispersants can reduce these risks by removing the oil from the sea
surface and moving it into the water where it can be diluted and degraded. However, this comes at
the cost of increasing exposure to the in-water community (e.g., fish, crustaceans, mollusks, corals,
sea grasses) to dispersed oil, thereby increasing the risk of damaging it. Depending on spill
-122-
009061
conditions, the overal1 risks posed by the dispersed oil may be less or greater than those posed by the
untreated spill, so before dispersants are used, the NEB of their use must be considered.
The impact and NEB of spills are influenced by a variety offactors, such as the location of the spill,
spill conditions and environmental conditions. Since practical experience with the effects of
dispersant use is limited, some analysis is required to assess the NEB in any given situation.
Decisions about the environmental merits of dispersant involve: a) estimating the potential damage
caused by the untreated spill; b) assessing the degree to which this damage can be reduced by using
dispersants; and c) finally, factoring in any damage that might be caused by the chemically dispersed
oil to in-water resources. These assessments have proven simple in certain contexts and highly
complex and challenging in others, as explained below.
Historically, assessments of the NEB associated with dispersant use have involved two basic
approaches: 1) an intuitive approach for spills in deep, offshore waters; and 2) an analytical approach
for others. The intuitive approach is based on a consensus among regulators and responders that
dispersants pose little environmental risk when used in deeper, offshore waters. General1y speaking,
dispersant use in waters farther than one to three miles offshore in waters greater than 30 to 60 feet
deep pose few environmental risks under most circumstances. This is because 1) dispersed spills in
these areas pose risks only to organisms in the upper water column (seabed dwellers are not at risk of
direct exposure); and 2) in offshore areas, productivity in the upper water column is generally low
and biota not abundant. Any minor risks that do exist are less than the well-known risks associated
with allowing untreated spills to contaminate sensitive and productive littoral zones and shorelines.
Thus the net environmental benefit of chemically dispersing spills in offshore areas is intuitively
clear. This intuitive approach is the basis for dispersant pre-approval agreements for waters in many
jurisdictions (IMO 1995; Region IV Regional Response Team).
A more rigorous, analytical approach is needed for assessing the NEB of dispersant use in shallow,
nearshore waters, because dispersing oil in here can have far greater effects than in offshore areas.
As a consequence, before planning to use dispersants in nearshore waters, it is necessary to
rigorously assess the risks associated with using dispersants and not using them, to identify the
approach that will result in the lesser overall environmental impact. This is done be estimating the
-123-
009062
potential impact of the untreated spill (and the reduction in impact that might result from dispersant
use) and comparing it with the impact of the spill on the in-water community, if treated with
dispersants. Common methods have been developed for these analyses including: Trudel (1984),
Trudel et al. (1986), Trudel and Ross (1987), Trudel et al. (1989), Aurand et al. (1998) and Pond et
al (2000). These methods all involve conducting analyses on a scenario basis. A series of realistic
spill scenarios are analyzed for the impacts of both untreated and dispersed spil1s and the NEB is
determined in each case. The damage resulting from the untreated and chemically dispersed spills is
estimated by performing the following:
I) Assembling a list of important, local, spill-sensitive resources or Valued

Environmental Components (VEC) upon which the impact of the spill is measured;
2) Estimating the fate and behavior ofthe spill itself, whether untreated or chemically
dispersed, and estimating the exposures experienced by the VECs;
3) Identifying the effects and the potential area within which effects might occur (areaof-effect), based on the sensitivity ofthe VEC and the spatial distribution of the oil;
4) Identifying the amount of each VEC popUlation that might be damaged by the spill
based on its vulnerability to the oil and the spatial overlap ofthe VEC's distribution
and the area-of-effect of the spill;
5) Estimating the length of time needed for the VEC popUlation to recover from the
damage; and
6) Assessing the relative value or importance of the potentially damaged resources.
The final step involves comparing the impacts of the untreated and chemically dispersed spills, in
order to determine whether dispersants might yield a net environmental benefit.
The next few sections describe the VECs included in the analysis, the general method used in
assessing net environmental benefit in each scenario, and the treatment of each of the critical factors
influencing impact in both the chemically-dispersed and untreated cases.
-124-
009063
6.2.1 Valued Environmental Components (VECs)
As explained above, in order avoid biasing the analysis of the net environmental benefit of
dispersants; it is critical that every important resource that is threatened by either the untreated or the
dispersed spills is included in the analysis. In the present study, the assessments of impact of
untreated and dispersed spills are made using the many ofthe same groups of valued environmental
components (VECs) that are used by MMS GaM OCS in their own environmental assessment
process (as described in MMS GOM OCS Region 1997, 1998, for example). The groups ofVECS
used in the present analysis are listed in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Types of Oil-Sensitive Resources Considered in this Analysis

Oil Sensitive Environments
a) Coastal Barrier Beaches
b) Wetlands
c)Topographic Features (e.g., coral
reefs)
Finfish, Shellfish and Commercial

Fisheries
a) Finfish
b) Crustaceans
c) molluscs
Wildlife
a) Marine Mammals
b) Coastal and Marine Birds
c) Marine Reptiles
Recreational Resources and

Human-Use Features
a) Recreational waterfronts
b) National/State Parks, Wildlife
Refuges, National Seashores
Information concerning the species present and their characteristics that determine susceptibility to
oil spills has been derived from several sources including:
a) Texas Coastal Oil Spill Planning and Response Tool Kit (1999);
b) b) Gulf-Wide Information System; and
c) c) MIRG 9/SLRoss system, as described in Trudel et a1. (1989).
The following is a brief description of each of the groups ofVECs included in this analysis.
9 MIRG is an oil industry planning group named Marine Industry Group (currently known as Marine Industry Response
-Gulf)
-125-
009064
6.2.1.1 Oil Sensitive Habitats
The substrates listed below are critical habitats for important biological communities in the Gulf.
They are particularly sensitive to damage by either chemically dispersed or untreated oil. Damage to
these habitats would have secondary impacts on the communities and species that they support.
a) Coastal Barrier Beaches
The coastal barriers ofthe western Gulf of Mexico consist oflow, elongated coastal land masses
composed of sand and other unconsolidated sediments. These provide habitats for a variety of
wildl ife species, including a number of endangered species. Oil spills themselves probably pose little
direct threat to the stability of these features, but large spill cleanup operations can affect beach
stability (MMS GaM OCS 1998). Coastal barrier beaches would not be affected by chemically
dispersed oil, but chemical dispersion of oil slicks in offshore areas would prevent beach oiling.
b) Wetlands
Wetland habitats of the Gulf coast include fresh, brackish and saltwater marshes and forested
wetland, including mangroves. These may be present as narrow coastal bands or broad expanses.
These wetlands perform a number of critical functions in the region, one of which is to provide
habitat and an energy source for a wide diversity of finfish, shellfish, and wildlife. Intertidal
wetlands are notoriously vulnerable and sensitive to effects of oil slicks. Oil stranding in wetlands
can kill or damage the above-ground portions ofthe plants. Depending on the level ofoiling and the
conditions of the oil and substrate, oil may penetrate into the substrate sufficiently to damage the
root systems. The spills being considered in the present study originate well offshore and the
dispersant operations to treat them take place well offshore. In scenarios, like scenarios 2b and 4b, in
which dispersant operations can be effective in dispersing the majority of the spilled oil, coastal
wetlands can be protected from the effects of oil slicks and are also unlikely to be exposed to either
dispersants or chemically dispersed oil. Even in the unlikely event that the cloud of dispersed oil
were to enter a wetland, the vegetation would probably not be damaged, because marsh plants are
relatively insensitive to chemically dispersed oil (Baca and Getter 1984).
-126-
009065
c) Offshore Hard-Bottom Communities
The shelf and shelf-edge in the Western Gulf contain a number of high relieftopographic features
that support hard-bottom communities in which the biological substrate is composed ofcorals, algae
and sponges (e.g., Flower Garden Banks). These are important for a variety of reasons, the most
important of which is that they are oases of relatively high biological productivity and diversity,
supporting large numbers of commercially and recreationally important species in an area that is
otherwise not particularly productive. These communities and their locations are described briefly in
MMS GOM OCS (1998).
Untreated spills pose little threat to these communities because most occur at depths of several tens
of meters (MMS GOM OCS 1998) or more while dangerously elevated concentrations of oil occur
only within a few meters of the surface immediately under slicks. The vertical penetration of spilled
oil into the water column under oil slicks has been studied by a number of authors. Cormack and
Nichols (1977) reported that, under small experimental slicks, oi I concentrations exceeding 1.0 ppm
occurred in the upper 2 m. Below this, concentrations declined steeply to the low hundreds ofppb at
5 m and then to a few tens of ppb below 10 meters. The observations of McAuliffe et at. (1981) and
Lichtenthaler and Daling (1985), also on small experimental spills, are consistent with this. Lunel et
a!. (1997) reported a similar pattern of distribution of oil under untreated slicks during the Sea
Empress spill (Wales, 1996). Since in untreated spills, dangerously elevated concentrations of
hydrocarbons generally do not occur below depths of 5 meters, while the shallowest of these
offshore hard-bottom communities occur at depths of 15 meters or greater (MMS GOM OCS 1998),
these spills pose very little threat to these communities.
Dispersant operations will cause elevated concentrations of oil in the upper water column. Clouds of
dispersed oil with concentrations in the range of 1 to 10 ppm, with spikes to several tens of ppm,
have been observed in the upper few meters ofthe water column under treated slicks (Cormack and
Nichols 1977, McAuliffe et al. 1981, Lichtenthaler and Daling 1985, Lunel et al. 1995, Lunel et al.
1997. Lunel (1994b) determined that, unlike untreated oil, chemically dispersed oil was quickly
mixed uniformly to a depth of up to five meters. McAuliffe et ai. (1981) showed that this uniform
-127-
009066
mixing layer penetrated only to 5 to 6 meters in to the water column, with concentrations declining
somewhat below this. A panel of experts concluded that, generally, it was unlikely that dangerously
elevated concentrations of chemically dispersed oil would penetrate below 10 meters into the water
column. These conditions may pose some risk oftoxicity to the pelagic Iife stages ofthe hard-bottom
species, if they are present in surface waters at the time ofthe spill. However, they pose little risk to
the bottom-dwelling adult life stages even in the shallowest (15 to 20 m depth) ofthe communities.
6.2.1.2 Wildlife
a) Coastal and Marine Birds
The Gulf of Mexico supports dozens of species of coastal and marine birds, including a number of
endangered species. Birds are of particular concern in the context of spills because some birds are
highly sensitive to spilled oil and are the most common casualties of spills. Bird species can be
divided into a number of subgroups, based on habits and certain of these subgroups, such as true
seabirds, are far more susceptible to the effects of spills than others. Some of the resident species in
the Gulf are present in large numbers year ro"und and breed in the Gulf region, while others are
migratory and are present for only part of the year. In short the risk posed birds by oil spills varies
with species, location and season.
Seabirds are a diverse assemblage of species that spend all oftheir lives in or on salt water. Many
members of this group are highly vulnerable to the effects of oil slicks because they spend
considerable time sitting on the water where they are vulnerable to contamination by oil slicks. This
group includes pelicans, cormorants, frigatebirds, guns, terns, phalaropes and skimmers.
Waterfowl are a group that includes ducks, geese and swans. These species spend part of their time
at sea and part on shore or inland. When at sea these species are similar to seabirds in terms of
vulnerability to spills because they spend part oftheir time sitting on the water and are vulnerable to
contamination by oil slicks. Most members ofthis group are migratory species and are present in the
Gulf for only part of the year.
-128-
009067
Waders or marsh birds are species that live in or around marshes and have long legs that enable them
to wade in shallow marsh or coastal waters to foragefor food. These species may be exposed to oil
slicks, but are less vulnerable to effects because they are less likely to have oil contact their plumage.
These include; herons; egrets; ibises spoonbills and cranes.
Shorebirds are species that are restricted to coastline margins, including beaches and mudflats. In the
Gulf region there are more than 40 species, including species of oystercatchers, stilts, plovers and
sandpipers. These species appear to be less vulnerable than seabirds to spills because their plumage
is less likely to become contaminated with oil.
The sensitivity of coastal and marine bird species, particularly seabird species, to oil slicks is well
known. However, their susceptibility to effects of chemically dispersed oil is less well understood.
The limited amount of information available suggests that bird species will be largely unaffected by
dispersant use, except perhaps if they are sprayed directly. In the present study this would be
unlikely because, due to the nature of the spills being considered, dispersant spraying will almost
invariably take place in offshore areas away from the most commonly used bird habitat.
b) Marine Reptiles
There are five species of sea turtle found in the Gulf of Mexico, including: loggerhead; green;
hawksbill; Kemp's ridley and leatherback sea turtles. All are protected under the Endangered Species
act. Sea turtle species are pelagic, spending most of their lives at sea. Adult females emerge
periodically to nest on beaches. The geographic distribution of nesting activity varies with species.
Most nest at some location within the Gulf, but only the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead nest in the
western Gulf. The potential susceptibility of sea turtles to oiling is not well understood. There are
accounts of turtles suffering sublethal effects as a result of exposure to oil (Vargo et al 1986,
Lutcavage et al. 1995) , however, accounts of effects of on turtles during actual spills (e.g.,
Mignucci-Giannoni 1999) appear to be rare. Nesting females and hatchlings are probably most
vulnerable to oiling during nesting season, if nesting beaches become oiled. In addition, nesting
activity and survivorship of nestlings may be affected by shoreline cleanup activities. There is little
evidence to suggest that pelagic turtles are susceptible to effects of chemically dispersed oil.
-129-
009068
c) Marine Mammals
The marine mammals in the Gulf Mexico, include twenty-eight species ofwhales and dolphins and
one species of manatee. The existing information concerning effects ofoil spills on marine mammals
show that hairy mammals (e.g., polar bears, otters, seals) are most sensitive to the effects of oiling.
Bare-skinned mammals appear to be far less susceptible. Some sublethal effects have been observed,
but neither mortalities nor other ecologically significant population effects can be linked to spills.
There is little information available concerning the risks to mammals by chemically dispersed oil.
6.2.1.3 Finfish, Shellfish and Commercial Fisheries
The Gulf of Mexico supports a wide variety offinfish and shellfish species, many of which support
highly valued commercial and recreational fisheries MMS GOM OCS (1998). The effects of
untreated marine spills on fish populations and on commercial fisheries have been documented and
the effects of hydrocarbons on fish and shellfish have been extensively studied (Law and Hellou
1999, National Research Council 1985). Under many conditions, fin-and shellfish populations do not
suffer material damage during untreated spills (National Research Council 1985). Some pelagic eggs
and larval life stages may be killed through contact with oil in the upper water column, but risks to a
year class strength or the stock, as a whole, is generally very, very small. Adults and juveniles
usually do not suffer toxic or significant sub lethal effects except in the case of very large spil1s, such
as the Amoco Cadiz or Exxon Valdez. More commonly, spills impact fisheries through local fishery
closures due to the presence ofoil slicks in fishing areas or the presence of spill-related hydrocarbon
contamination in fish tissue (Law and Hellou 1999).
On the other hand, there is little information available concerning the effects of chemically dispersed
oil on fish stocks and fisheries. Our knowledge in this area is based on only a very limited number of
actual case studies involving dispersed spills (Smith 1968, Lawet al. 1998) and extensive laboratory
work (GESAMP 1993, National Research Council 1989, SL Ross 1997b, Trudel 1985). Chemical
dispersion unquestionably increases the contamination ofthe water column and experimental studies
have demonstrated that dispersed oil can be toxic to marine life under laboratory conditions (e.g.,
Shuba and Heikamp 1989, Singer et aJ. 1991, 1996). However, there is a growing body of
-130-
009069
information to suggest that chemically-dispersed oil may not cause mortality to in-water species
under actual spill conditions, with the possible exception ofthe more sensitive species and larval life
stages. The reason is that toxic thresholds for dispersed oil for most species are well above the
concentrations likely to be encountered even in the upper water column under dispersing slicks (SL
Ross 1997b). As with untreated spills, chemically dispersed spills will probably have their greatest
effect on fisheries through closures due to the presence of contamination in the water or through
closures or condemning of catches due to the presence of contamination in fish tissues.
The most important commercial fishery species in the study area and their relative values based on
catch and dollar value of catch is given in Table 6-2.
The vulnerabilities ofVECs that are sensitive to untreated spills (e.g., shorelines, shoreline habitat,
parks, birds, turtles) are wen represented in currently available information sources, such as
TCOSPR 1999 and MMS 2000. It is important to recognize, however, that these information sources
provide very little information concerning resources that are susceptible to chemically dispersed oil,
namely fishery species and fisheries. For this reason the MIRG/SL Ross model supplemented with
more recent data have been used in estimating risks to fisheries. This system and the associated
natural resource database are described in Trudel et al. (1989). During the development of the
MIRG/SL Ross oil spill impact assessment system for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, representatives of
state natural resource trustee agencies and regulatory agencies were asked to identify the resources
that could be pivotal to oil spill management decisions. The agencies nominated seventy species of
birds, mammals, reptiles, living habitats, amenities, fish and shellfish. The list of resources is given
in Trudel et al. (1989). The groups of finfish, crustaceans and mollusks to which these species
belonged are identified below.
-131-
009070
a) Crustaceans
The Gulf supports a wide variety of crusatcean species and members of this group, the brown, white
and pink penaeid shrimps, are by far the most important commercial fishery species of any kind in
the Gulf. The blue crab occurs throughout the Gulf and supports significant in most states. The stone
crab is taken in important quantities only in Florida.
b) Finfish
The finfish species support fisheries throughout the Gulf, but are particularly important in Louisiana
and Mississippi, where the Gulf menhaden is by far the most important species. In these states and
in Texas, other estuary-dependant species, such as black drum are important, as are the shelfspecies,
red snapper. The pelagic king mackerel dominates the Florida fishery.
c) Molluscs
A variety of molluscs are common in the northern Gulfin the area of this study area. However, the
most common and economically important is the American oyster mollusks are particularly sensitive
to contamination during spills, which commonly results in prolonged closures of fisheries.
6.2.1.4 Recreational Resources and Human Use Features
Human use features are common and widespread in the Gulf, and these are in danger of becoming
contaminated during oil spills. They include: a) parks and protected areas; and b) recreational or
amenity beaches.
-133-
009071
a) Recreational waterfronts
Extensive stretches ofthe Gulf coast are made up ofrecreational sand beach. Contamination ofthese
beaches with spilled oil or the cleanup activities, which follow spills, will render these beaches
unusable for recreational purposes for the duration of the spill and cleanup.
b) National and State Parks, Wildlife Refuges, National Seashores
These installations combine conservation and recreation functions; with the emphasis on recreation
varying from installation to installation. Those at risk from spill scenarios in this study all include
recreational beaches. The potential impact of spills on the use and amenity value of these
installations appears to be variable. MMS GOM OCS (1998) suggests, apparently based on
experience in several major U.S. marine spills, that large spills can 44severely impact" the
recreational use of these installations. However, Freeman et al. (1985) and Sorensen (1990), cited in
MMS GOM OCS (1998), suggest that, in some cases, pollution from spills in or near these
installations can cause no significant effects on park use or a modest, short-term reduction in use
(10-15 percent reduction in usership for one season).
6.2.2 General Method for Analyzing Spill Scenarios

The net environmental benefit of dispersant use was assessed by analyzing selected oil spill
scenarios. For each scenario, estimates of environmental impact were formu lated for the spill if left
untreated and if it were chemically dispersed. Impact estimates were made considering all of the
VECs identified above. The general approach is illustrated in Figure 6.1.
-134-
009072
Oil Spill
...
Co'tm1ermeasuNS Choice
~
Use Dispersants
A~sess
No Cispers.ants
Assess 00 Movement
and Distribution
011 Movement
and DlsbibUticn
Identify and Assess Impact

on lbreatened Species
Identify and Assess lf11)8ct

()(1 Threatened Spec_es
Col'fII)are Impacts
Conslde-r Relative Import1nce of Resources
Dbipersant: Use Decision
Figure 6.1 Flowchart of Method for Assessing Net Environmental Benefit

The procedure for assessing net environmental benefit in each scenario involves three steps. as
follows.
Step 1. IdentifY the resources threatened by either the untreated and dispersed spill cases. This is
based on:
a) the movement and fate of oil; and
b) the geographic distribution of oil-sensitive resources.
Step 2. Estimate the kind and amount of damage to each VEC that might result from untreated and
chemically dispersed spills. This is based on:
a) the spatial extent of oil distribution and environmental concentrations of oil;

b) the sensitivity of each VEC to oil;
c) the spatial distribution of the target VEC stock; and
d) the vulnerability of various VEC life stages to oiling.
-135-
009073
Step 3. QuantifY the impacts of the untreated and dispersed spills and compare them to determine
which approach yields the lesser overall environmental impact, that is which offers a net
environmental benefit. This is based on:
a) the VECs at risk from the treated and untreated spills;

b) the level of acute damage suffered by each VEe;
c) the length of tiine required for each damaged VEC to recover to its pre-spill condition; and
d) the value placed on each VEC by the local human popUlation.
The method for expressing the level of damage in a simple, unambiguous language is critical to this
work. A number of approaches have been developed in the past for use in environmental impact
statements (e.g. Beanlands and Duinker 1983) and in analyses of net environmental benefit (pond et
al. 2000, Trudel et al. 1983, 1987, 1989), but at present there is no standard method. Any method
used must apply equally well to a wide variety ofVECs using a common set of criteria. For purposes
of this study, we have modified and updated a system developed earlier by MMS for preparing
environmental impact assessments. It is important to recognize that while impact is, in fact, a
continuous function, we have divided this continuum into five discrete categories for purposes of
simplicity. The categories ofimpact have been defined based on: a) the definition ofthe target stock
(regional versus local); b) severity and amount of damage to the stock; and c) the length of the
recovery period. In order to aid the reader, words have been used (e.g., low, medium, high) to label
the categories ofimpact, instead of Ietters or numbers. The definitions of the categories are given in
Table 6-3.
Each ofthe critical factors in determining impact is described briefly in the following sections.
-136-
Table 6-3 Definitions of terms used to quantify impacts (a)

Level of Impact
Valued
Environmental
Component (VEC)
General Definition
Very High
Offshore Hard-
Complete loss or m~or

changes in system
elements; recovery
time> to years
Low
Large proportion of
local resource or small
proportion of regional
resource damaged,
intermediate recovery
time
Oil-Sensitive Environments
O.125%/yr of the habitat 0.05%/yr of the habitat
within a physiographic
unit OR 500 halyr are
permanently converted
to other types
to other types
Substantial loss of
system elements;
recovery time 5 to to
years
Measurable loss of
system elements;
recovery time 2 to 5
years
Very Low
Damage detectible, but
negligibly small on a
small, local resource,
recovery period very
short
< 0.05% of the habitat

unit OR 200 ha
affected; recovery time
are> tyear
< 0.025% of the habitat

unit OR 100 ha affected;
recovery time are>
I year
Measurable loss of
system elements;
recovery time < 2 years
Some detectible effects;

recovery time <1 year
Highly Valued Species

Endangered
Species(indudes all
Measurable decline in
numbers; duration> 2
generation
numbers; duration I to 2
generations
numbers; duration < 1
generation
Chronic, persistent
sublethal effects
Transient sublethal
effects
Complete loss of
regional population;
recovery time> 3
generations
generations
recovery time I to 2
generations
recovery time < one
generation
Mortality offew
individuals
sea turtle species)

Cetaceans
-----
-137-
009074
0.25%/yr of the habitat

to other types
Communities
Medium
Large proportion of a
large target resource
damaged, recovery
period very long, if not
indefinite.
Wetlands
Bottom
High
Table 6-3 Definitions of terms used to quantify impacts (a)

Level of 1m pact
Valued
Environmental
Component (VEC)
Coastal or Marine
Birds, Finfish and
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
population; recovery
time> 3 generations
generations
recovery time I to 2
generations
recovery time < one
generation
Mortality of few
individuals
Shellfish
Human-Use Resources or Features

Stock or regional
fishery materially
reduced; recovery time
> 3 generations
Stock or regional fishery

materially reduced for I
or more generations
Stock or regional
fishery reduced;
recovery >1
generation; local
fishery materially
disrupted for more than
I year.
Stock materially
reduced for < 1
generation; regional
fishery not affected;
local fishery reduced
for 1 peak operating
season.
Transient sublethal
effects only; stock and
regional fisheries not
materially reduced; local
fishery disrupted for
I peak season.
Recreational Beach
Complete loss or major

disruption in beach use
and associated tourism
on regional scale
lasting> 1 year.
Substantial loss or
disruptions in beach use
and associated tourism
on regional scale lasting
> 1 peak use season.
Some substantial loss

or disruption in beach
use and associated
tourism on regional
scale lasting 
I peak season.
Some interference with

the quality of beaches
on a regional scale,
widespread cleaning
may not be needed; or
some localized, shortterm disruptions to
beach use; some
localized cleanup
required.
Interference with quality

of beaches may be
perceptible, but will not
necessitate cleaning and
will not materially
disrupt recreational use.
Use
a. Based heavily on U.S. Department of the Interior (1991)
-138-
009075
Commercial Fishery
009076
6.2.3 Fate and Movements of Oil

The movement~ fate and behavior of the untreated oil slick or the cloud of chemically-dispersed oil
are key determinants of the impacts of spills. In the case of the oil
slick~
this involves the direction
and speed of movement ofthe slick, its rate of spreading, and its rates of evaporation, dispersion and
emulsification. In the case of the dispersed oil, this involves the movement and spreading of the
cloud. These processes determine where the oil moves (and where effects will take place), the
persistence of the oil, the size of the area affected, and the environmental concentrations of oil or
hydrocarbons to which oil-sensitive resources will be exposed. These factors coupled with the toxic
potency of the oil determines whether on not effects, occur, as well as the location and size of the
area within which effects could occur.
The present study involved simulating the fate and movements of seven spill scenarios, including
both batch spills and blowouts from each of six launch sites. In all cases the fate and movement of
the spills were handled separately as follows.
6.2.3.1 Fate and Behavior of the Spills

The fate and behavior of untreated and chemically dispersed cases for all spills were simulated using
the SL Ross oil spill model, SLROSM, as described elsewhere in this report. For the untreated batch
spills, the discharge was assumed to be instantaneous and the fate and behavior of all of the oil were
calculated for the spill as a single parcel. The persistence and spreading of the spill and changes in
oil properties with time are summarized for the batch spills in Tables 4-1 and 4-3.
For the blowouts or continuous spill scenarios, the spill was modeled as a series of many discrete
parcels of oil or spillets. The persistence, spreading and changes in oil properties with time were
calculated for a single spillet and applied to all spillets (Tables 4-1 and 4-3). The cumulative
environmental exposure from a blowout spill, such as the length of shoreline oiled and the level of
shoreline oiling, was estimated by summing the effects of the spillets, as explained below.
-139-
009077
For the chemically dispersed spills in both the batch and blowout spills, all of the oil dispersed on a
given day was treated as a single parcel, which was dispersed instantaneously at the midpoint ofthe
operating day. That is, if dispersant operations took place from 0600 to 1800 on a given day,
dispersing 1500 m 3 of oil, then all 1500 m3 were assumed to disperse instantaneously at the location
ofthe spill as of 1200 noon. The resulting cloud of dispersed oil was spread and moved according to
the SL Ross model. This had the effect of yielding a worst-case estimate of impact.
6.2.3.2 Movement of Oil
The environmental damage caused by a spill is strongly influenced by where it goes as a result of
winds and currents. In this study the movements of oil slicks (batch spills) and spillets (blowout
spills) were estimated using results of Spill Risk Analyses conducted by Minerals Management
-Service in conjunction with environmental impact analyses. Analyses for spills from the five launch
sites off Texas and Louisiana, as well as the deep-water launch site were taken from Price et al.
(2000). Analyses for the Destin Dome launch site were taken from the OSRA for the Destin Dome
Development and Production Plan (Price et al. 1998). Both the transit time and the point(s) of
contact with the shoreline were estimated using conditional probability data for spills from the
respective launch sites.
For batch spills, the point of contact with the shoreline was taken to be the midpoint of the segment
with the highest conditional probability of contact (Figure 6-2). The time oftransit from the spill site
to the shoreline was taken to be median transit time based on the OSRA analyses, as illustrated in
Figure 6-3. These also were based on conditional probabilities of contact with shorelines within
specified periods oftime from Price et al. (2000, 1998). The level of shoreline oiling was estimated
using the volume of oil remaining at the time of contact and the Okubo width ofthe slick at the time
the slick hit the shoreline, from the oil fate simulations in Section 4.5, above. This approach yields
the most probable impact ofthe untreated spill rather than the worst-case impact. Thus the analysis
of net environmental is based on comparing the most probable impact of the untreated spiIJ vs. that
of the dispersed spill.
-140-
Figure 6-2 Spatial distribution of conditional probabilities of shoreline contacts

occurring within 30 days (a,b)
Launch Point
Season
Shoreline Segment
0
Texas NS
Winter
MidPoint
Summer
MidPoint
SeQments in Central and Western Parts of the Gulf (e,n

9 10 11 12 13 14 15
6 7 8
4 I 5
:i,', J,'"
p,
*;~
17
19
18
100
420
93
420
;~~~5"1.t
90
960
48
480
76
960
37
480
_"",;2
49
840
15
41
900
'",
}2i2
',",
,I
Flower Gardens
Summer
Flower Gardens
Winter
o_Fi'...~~,sl;t
Louisiana
Summer
Louisiana
Winter
1",',;:0':',;'1'
JiJS;\Q
.,,',
,,~
,"
".,.,:2f'i';f"~
I~
;,<,",',';2
Seliments in Eastern Gulf (Q)
Launch Point
Destin Dome
Summer
Destin Dome
Winter
o :1;2!l!
'R"''''''
0
9 I 10
11
12
13
14
I 15
16
17
18
I
;2.5tM);1'
l!i2iZlp,I);'i1
,~<
,_., ,_ '0,
a. Based on OSRA as explained in Seclion 6.2.3.2.

b. Conditional probability per segment I total conditional probabilites of shoreline contad within 30 days.
c. Total conditional probabilities for contad on all shoreline segments within 30 days
d. Shoreline length number of segments x length of segments
e. From Price et al. (1997. 2000); segments approximately 60 km in length.
f. Segment 0 = International Land
g. From Price et a1.1998. the OSRA for the Destin Dome development; segments approximately 30 km in length.
-141-
$.4"2.7;
19
20
o[t,2..~
37
390
37
240
009078
(c)
16
"",",'x,','
"'., ,
Winter
Total
Length
Oiled
km (d)
'/.i!
Summer
TexasNS
Total
Condo
Prob.
30 Days
009079
Figure 6-3 Estimated Time for Oil to Reach Shore from Launch Sites
Texas Nearshore
Louisiana
r---,--,..-----,--.,-------,
100
10
15
Tlme In Days
20
25
30 ,
10
20
15
Time in Days
-o-SUM1
Mid-Point
75
...e
50
:g
co
2S
Q.
./
.LL----
10
15
-c.-WIN1
100
..6
l-
30
Deep Water Site
100
2S
i...
~
r-
Q.
76
SO
2S
20
25
30
10
15
20
26
20
25
30
Time in DaY"
Destin Dome
Flower Gardens
100
~ 75
:sco
.c
11.
..
50
,,'
25
10
15
llme in Days
--a--SUM1
20
..
",
"
;;;:;:.;.r---
1
25
30
10
15
Time In Days
_ _ WIN1
-o-SUM1
-142-
-c.-WIN1
30
009080
In the case of blowout spills, spillet trajectories and the distribution and level of shoreline oiling
were also based on conditional probability of shoreline contact within 30 days, as in Figure 6-2. The
level of shoreline oiling in each segment was based on: a) the proportion of spillets contacting the
segment; b) the volume of oil remaining per spillet at time of stranding; and c) the width of the
segment. For the sake of simplicity the transit time for all spillets was taken to be the median transit
time for all spillets (Figure 6-3).
6.2.4 Sensitivity of Valued Environmental Components
Sensitivity refers to the level of exposure to oil required to cause damage to a target resource. Spill
management decisions take into account a wide variety of types of resources, as described above;
these resources interact with oil in a variety of ways and suffer a range of effects. The types of
effects and the exposure threshold for each vary from resource to resource. Values for effect
thresholds for different resources and effects have been derived from published experimental work.
Minerals Management Service has developed effect threshold values for untreated spills for its
environmental impact assessment process, as described in MMS GOM oes (1998). These values
have been used whenever available. The effeCts and effect threshold values used in this study are
described on a resource-by-resource basis in Table 6-4. In each scenario. the effect threshold
information is combined with the oil fate information to determine the location and size ofthe area
within which effects might be expected to occur. This "area-of-effect" is then combined with
information about the spatial distribution of the appropriate target species to estimate the amount of a
target resource that is affected by the spill.
-143-
Table 6-4 Effect thresholds used in estimating impact

Resource
SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS
Coastal Barrier Beaches
Wetlands
Chemically Dispersed Oil
Oiling, per se, has no direct effect on these sand shores. No effect.
However, Cleanup of large spills can affect beach
stability.(MMS 1998, p IV-86)
Short-term effects. Complete or partial mortality ofthe No effect.
above-ground parts of plants, with complete recovery in
less than one year. Exposure threshold is 0.01 11m2 or
0.1 l!linear m of shore with a depth of effect of I m or
less.
Long-tenn effect. Complete or partial mortality of the
below-ground parts of the vegetation. Loss of the root
systems result in loss of stability of the substrate
resulting in erosion. Recovery is many years. Exposure
Threshold is 0.1 to 1.0 11m of shoreline.
Complete or partial mortality of the coral species is
expected to occur at exposure concentrations of 3 ppm
of total petroleum hydrocarbons as physically dispersed
oil.
009081
Live Hard-Bottom Communities

(Offshore)
Untreated Oil
Complete or partial mortality of the

coral species is expected to occur at
exposure concentrations of 3 ppm of
total petroleum hydrocarbons as
chemically-dispersed oil.
WILDLIFE
Marine Mammals
Note that only bare-skinned species
are present in the Gulf of Mexico
study area.
Given the rarity of accounts of impacts of spills on bare- No effect.

skinned mammals, an exposure threshold for slicks of
10 mm in thickness has been used.
---
---~
-144-
---
Table 6-4 Effect thresholds used in estimating impact (cont.)

Resource
Marine Reptiles
Coastal and Marine Birds
Untreated Oil
At sea - Adults. Exposure threshold for slicks is 5mm

in thickness.
At sea - Hatchlings and juveniles, exposure threshold
is 0.5 mm At the shoreline - 1 11m of shoreline is the
threshold for hatchling and adults.
No effect.
Exposure threshold for contact of birds with oil slicks

at sea. Exposure threshold is 0.1 mm for mortality for
all birds.
No effect.
FINFISH, SHELLFISH AND FISHERIES

Effect threshold for mortality and other significant
sublethal effects on adults and juveniles is 20 ppm as
oil-water dispersion in ambient water. Organisms at
depths greater than 3 m are invulnerable to untreated
oil.
Effect threshold for mortality and

other significant sublethal effects on
adults and juveniles is 20 ppm as
chemically-dispersed oil in ambient
water. Organisms at depths greater
than 10 m are invulnerable to
Crustacea
Effect threshold for mortality and other significant

sublethal effects on adults and juveniles is 10 ppm as
oil-water dispersion in ambient water. Organisms at
depths greater than 3 m are invulnerable to untreated
oil.
Effect threshold for mortality and

other significant sublethal effects on
adults and juveniles is 10 ppm as
chemically-dispersed oil in ambient
than lO m are invulnerable to
-145-
009082
Finfish
Table 6-4 Effect thresholds used in estimating impact (cont.)

Resource
Bivalve Mollusca
Eggs and Larvae of All Species
results in the closure of the NMFS fishing zone for a

period of one month.
----------
-146-
009083
Fishery
Untreated Oil
Effect threshold for mortality and other significant Effect threshold for mortality and
sublethal effects on adults and juveniles is 10 ppm as other significant sublethal effects on
oil-water dispersion in ambient water. Organisms at adults and juveniles is 10 ppm as
depths greater than 3 m are invulnerable to untreated chemically-dispersed oil in ambient
oil.
than 10 m are invulnerable to
Effect threshold for mortality and other significant Effect threshold for mortality and
sublethal effects is 5 ppm total petroleum other significant sublethal effects is 5
hydrocarbons. Organisms at depths greater than 3 m ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons as
are invulnerable to untreated oil.
dispersed oil. Organisms at depths
greater than 10 m are invulnerable to
Closure of a fishery for reasons of contamination of Closure of a fishery for reasons of
the environment OR tainting of the exploitable life contamination ofthe environment OR
stages:
tainting ofthe exploitable life stages b)
a) each NMFS fishing zone that is traversed by the exposures to oil concentrations greater
untreated oil slick is assumed to be closed for a than 1 ppm in ambient water is
assumed to cause tainting and results
period of one month; and
b) exposures to oil concentrations greater than 1 ppm in the closure of the NMFS fishing
in ambient water is assumed to cause tainting and zone for a period of one month.
Table 6-4 Effect thresholds used in estimating impact (cont.) .

Resource
Untreated Oil
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
-147-
No effect.
The contaminated portions of marine

parks or underwater parks are assumed
to be unusable for as long as
measurable concentrations of oil (100
ppb) persist.
009084
Recreational Resources and Beach Use Contamination at a level greater than 10 liter of oil
per linear m of shoreline will require cleanup and
will result in the closure of the affected region for 30
days.
Contamination at a level greater than 1 liter of oil per
linear m of shoreline will cause short-tem reduction
in beach use.
The use of land-based park facilities are assumed to
Parks
be unaffected by oil contamination oftheir shores, as
per MMS 1998 P IV-144.The contaminated portions
of marine parks or underwater parks are assumed to
be unusable for as long as visible oil slicks persist.
009085
6.2.5 Vulnerability and Spatial Distribution of Valued Environmental

Components
Untreated and chemically-dispersed oil spills cause dangerous exposure conditions only in localized
areas and only in a limited portion of the marine environment, such as the sea surface and the upper
part of the water column. The impact of a spill is strongly determined by: 1) whether or not oilsensitive resources occupy the parts of the environment that are contaminated by oil and 2) how
much of each resource at risk lies within the "area-of-effec1:@ caused by the spill.
Vulnerability refers to whether or not a resource occupies the part ofthe marine environment where
toxic conditions occur. Untreated spills cause toxic conditions as follows.
1. Oil slicks pose risks to organisms at the sea surface placing at risk targets that inhabit the sea
surface such as sea birds, marine mammals, sea turtles and fishing activity.
2. Oil stranded on a shoreline poses risks to organisms in the intertidal zone placing at risk
resources like coastal marshes and bathing beaches.
3. Physically dispersed oil poses risk to organisms in the upper one or two meters of the water
column, placing at risk the young pelagic life stages of species, such as corals and commercially
important finfish species. On the other, hand physically dispersed oil poses little risk to species
that live at depths deeper than 3 or 4 meters.
Chemically-dispersed spilJs cause toxic or contaminating conditions in the upper 5 to 10 meters of

the water column and so pose risks to young life stages in the upper water column, demersal or
benthic species if dispersants are used in shallow water, and commerCial fishing activity. Dispersed
spills do not pose risks to resources that live deeper than 10 meters.
In short, if an oil spill threatens a resource, the resource is at risk from the spill only if it occupies a
part of the environment that is contaminated by the spill.
009086
The second factor covered here-spatial overlap between the area-of-effect of a spill and the area of
distribution of a target resource-is straight forward. The "area-of-effect" of the spill is the area
within which exposure conditions are sufficient to cause an effect. If a resource is broadly
distributed, such as the brown shrimp, an oil spill is likely to contact only a very small proportion of
the stock and the impact will be very smal1. On the other, ifthe area of distribution of a resource is
relatively small, such as the pelagic foraging areas of local Brown Pelican stocks on the coast of
Texas, there is potential for contaminating a large portion of the area with an oil spill and causing a
large impact.
6.2.6 Recovery Potential
A critical consideration in dispersant decision-making is the speed with which resources can recover
after they are damaged by a spill. Recovery rates vary with the type of resource, type of extent of
injury. Phytoplankton populations can be expected to recover quickly, within days after being
damaged by a spill. A lightly oiled section of coastal marsh might require from a few months to a
year or more to recover, provided only the above-ground portions of the plants were affected. A
stand of red mangrove might require many years to recover if a large proportion ofthe adult trees are
killed by a spill. Recovery times for different resources in this study are summarized in Table 6-5.
Table 6-5 Time Required for Recovery from Significant Damage for A Range of ResourceTypes
Recovery Time
Many
Valued Environmental
Several
Years
Weeks Months One Year Years
Resource
Recreational waterfronts (a)
Wetlands
Commercial Fishing (b)
..
Crustaceans (shrimp, crabs)

Finfish (drums, croaker)
Molluscs (oysters, scallops)
Coastal and Marine Birds (terns, skimmers)
Sea Turtles
Marine Mammals (whales, dolphins)
[
a. ProVided oiled beaches are cleaned up.
b. ProVided disruption is caused by closure or contamination of the stock.
-149-
I
I
009087
6.2.7 Relative Importance of Valued Environmental Components

All of the factors considered above deal with actual damage to resources. When assessing net
environmental benefit, it is important to recognize that stakeholders do not place equal value or
importance on all environmental components and their valuation should be taken into account. There
is no single accepted approach or fonnula for rating the relative importance of sources. In general,
criteria include such factors as economic, ecological, social and moral factors, but criteria and
relative values vary from place to place.
In the present treatment it has not been possible to make fine distinctions in value among resources.
Instead we have used our experience in workshops on this subject and have valued certain resource
types namely: oil-sensitive habitats (e.g., coastal marsh); endangered species; and economic
resources (e.g., commercial fisheries, recreational bathing beaches) more highly than others (e.g.,
non-endangered shorebirds).
6.2.8 Assessing Net Environmental Benefit

The final step in the analysis ofa spill scenario is to compare the potential impacts of the untreated
and chemically dispersed cases in order to detennine whether chemical dispersion offers a net
environmental benefit in this case. The approach taken here was to list all of the resources at risk
from the spill, in either the untreated or chemically dispersed cases, based on the above. The level of
risk to each resource was estimated using the criteria in Table 6-3 and the infonnation on the
exposure to oil and the sensitivity, vulnerability, spatial distribution and recovery potential of each
resource. This infonnation was tabulated as. in example Table 6-6 below.
-150-
009088
. Table 6-6 Example Summary of Environmental Risks for a Spill Scenario:

Batch Spill2b Launched from Texas Nearshore Site in Summer
Impact of Treatment
Component (VEC)
Untreated Case
Chemically-Dispersed Case
SENSITIVE HABITAT
I
Coastal Marsh
Low
No Effect
Brown Pelican (EIF)(a)
Medium
No Effect
Least Tern (Elf)
Medium
No Effect
Very Low
No Effect
Medium
No Effect
Snowy Plover
Very Low
No Effect
Peregrine Falcon
Very Low
No Effect
Kemp=s ridley Sea Turtle (Elf)
Low
No Effect
Leatherback Sea Turtle (Elf)
Low
No Effect
Loggerhead ST
Low
No Effect
White Shrimp
Very Low
Very Low (Low)
Brown Shrimp
Very Low
Low (Medium)
Atlantic Croaker
Very Low
Low
WILDLIFE
Royal Tern
Piping Plover (Elf)
MARINE REPTILES
FINFISH, SHELLFISH AND FISHERIES (b)

i
SHORELINES
Scarps, Sand Beach
4km
Medium
No Effect
Very Low
No Effect
HUMAN USE FEATURE

Amenity Sand Beach
Padre Island Nat. Seashore
a. FIE = Endangered Species Federally

b. All impacts are on fisheries. Target fisheries are those landing catches in Texas
-151-
009089
From the tabulated information in Table 6-6 it was possible to determine:
1. the potential damage to VECs from the untreated spill;
2. the degree to which this damage could be ameliorated through dispersant use; and
3. the potential increase in damage to any resources resulting from dispersant use.
This information was recorded and conclusions were drawn about the net environmental benefits or
drawbacks of dispersant use in this scenario and any uncertainties associated with the assessment.
6.3 Analysis of Factors Influencing Net Environmental Benefit

This section considers the net environmental benefits of dispersant use for specific spill scenarios
and launch sites in the Gulf Mexico. For each spill scenario, the environmental impact has been
estimated for both the untreated and chemically dispersed cases, and the two impacts have been
compared to determine whether dispersant use might reduce the overall environmental impact ofthe
spill and yield a net environmental benefit. Combinations of launch sites and spill conditions have
been selected to consider the influence of important variables, such as spill location, distance from
shore; spill type (i.e., batch spill versus blowout) and season.
Overall, this project involves a bewildering combination of spill scenarios and launch sites, but for
purposes of simplicity, the various combinations of spill conditions and launch sites can be divided
into three groups, based on risk of shoreline contamination (Table 6-7-at end of section) as follows.
Spills that dissipate naturally. This group includes all of the spills that dissipate naturally offshore,
causing no shoreline oiling or impact in the nearshore and intertidal zones. Included are spills ofNoE or Low-E oils, which either do not emulsify or emulsify only slowly. These dissipate quickly in
scenarios 1a, 1b, 2a and 4a for most launch points. It also includes smaller spills of persistent oils
that take place well offshore, such as scenarios 6b and 7b for the launch points farthest offshore
(Table 6-7).
-152-
009090
Spills that could reach shore, but cau be fully dispersed offshore. This group includes
emulsifiable spills that would persist to reach shore ifleft untreated, but that emulsify slowly enough
to allow dispersant operations to fully disperse the spills at sea. This group includes scenarios 2b and
4b for alJ launch points, as well as 6b and 7b for the launch points nearest to shore.
Spills in which dispersant operations do little to reduce the amount of oil reaching the
shoreline. This group includes spills that emulsify quickly, resulting in considerable oil arriving at
the shoreline. In these spills emulsification is so rapid that dispersant operations do little to diminish
the amount of reaching shore. This includes moderate sized spills, which emulsify quickly, such as
scenario 2c. It also includes very large spills of emulsifying oils in which the amount of oil spilled
greatly exceeds the amount that can be dispersed within the time window. This includes scenarios 3
and 5.
Much of the analysis that follows is based on the middle group of spills above, that is, spills that
could reach shore if untreated, but which can be fully treated near the spill site. This analysis offers
the clearest view of the environmental tradeoffs. There is no formal analysis presented for the other
spill groups, but they are mentioned in the discussion that follows the
~cenario
analysis sections.
Five spill scenarios are fully analyzed:
]. Spill 2b launched from Mid-Point in summer (MP/2b/Summer) should present the simplest
decision-making problem because dispersion takes place well offshore where risks should be
low.
2. Spill 2b launched from Texas Nearshore in summer (Texas/2b/Summer) involves the launch
point that is nearest to shore.
3. Spill 2b launched from Destin Dome in summer (Destin Dome/2b/Summer) is the only launch
site ~n the Eastern Gulf, and has been included to examine the effects of spill location.
-153-
009091
4. Spill 2b launched from Texas Nearshore in winter (Texas/2b/Winter) considers the effect of
season.
5. Spill 4b launched from Texas Nearshore in summer (Texas/4b/Summer) considers the

differences between batch spills and blowouts.
In the following sections the tables and figures for each scenario are placed at the end ofthe section.
-154-
Table 6-7 S
Launch
Site
SPILL SUMARY
Total Volume
Flow Rate & Duration
Oil Type
Persistence
Emulsion Time (b)
TEXAS NS-SUMMER
Volume (m~ (e)
Length of Shore Oiled, (m)
fL
Time To
Shore (a)
bbls
m3
bblld x d
f Shoreline Oil'
lb
20,000
3,180
NA
No-E
days (hours) 4.8(117)
hours
2(48)
>117
2a
20,000
3,180
Scenario
4a
4b
2b
2c
20,000
3,180
20,000
3,180
100,000
15,898
20,000
3,180
20,000
3,180
5b
5a
1,400,000
222,575
6-50
1,400,000
222,575
7-50
20,000
3,180
100,000
15,898
NA
LoE
4.6(111)
NA
Av-E
30(>720)
NA
Hi-E
30(>720)
NA
Hi-E
30(>730)
5000X4
Lo-E
0.6 (15)
5000X4
Av-E
30(>720)
100,000/14
Hi-E
30(>720)
100,000x14
Av-EA
30(>720)
5000X4
Av-E
12.6(306
7200x14
Av-E
18(432)
>1l1
58
>12
II
23
4.5
II 65
4162
2078
4162
2346
4162
II936
4162
1947
420000
166249
420000
152288
420000
1253
420000
6773
420000
279
279
499
563
2344
12.3
4.6
1053
395
964
362
7.9
2.9
42.9
16.1
1861
15053
2177
15053
11247
15053
. 1749
420000
100840
42000~
135106
420000
877
420000
50279
420000
123
145
747
8.4
4.1
487
240
653
321.6
4.2
2
24.5
12
(d)
6(144)
ICd)
Max Cone (m3/m) (e)

Avg Cone (ml/m) (I)
-155-
009092
Max Cone (m3/m) (e)

Avg Cone (m3/m) (I)
TEXAS NS-WINTER
Volume (m3 ) ( e )
Table6-7 S
Launch
Site
MID-POINT-SUMMER
Volume (m~ (e)
I(d)
Max Cone (ml/m) (e)
Avg Cone (m3/m) (I)
MID-POINT-WINTER
Volume{m~ (c 1
fL
Time To
Shore (a)
f Shoreline OilinR. (C
Scenario
Ib
2a
2b
4a
2c
4b
5b
Sa
6-50
1675
18028
1951
' 18028
10521
18028
102
119
618
1510
960000
48148
960000
II 6363
960000
960000
19191
960000
4.4
1.8
236.2
94.6
343.2
137.5
20.1
0.8
12.4
5
1152
480000
31796
480000
102306
480000
0
480000
0
4800001
5.2
2.4
143.1
66.2
460.3
213.1
0
0
0,
0
1669
390000
754002
390000
128078
390000
642
390000
4139
.390000
29 (696)
1716
98949
9900
98949
15.3
17.3
100
1790
24191
2097
24191
24191
,0
6(144)
74
8608
453
1861
15053
2177
15053
11247
15053
123
144
747
-156-
0
0
8.6
4.3
377
193.3
661.7
328.4
3.3
1.6
21.4
10.6
1709
13.7
100840
806.7
135106
108.1
877
7
5080
40.6
7.1
420.2
562.9
3.6
21.2
009093
9(216)
1518
98949
I(d)
Max Cone (m3/m) (e)

Avg Cone (m3/m) (I)
DESTIN DOME-WINTER
Volume (m3 ) ( c 1
Cd)
Max Cone (m3/m) (e)
Avg Cone (m3/m) (I)
7-50
I
7(168)

(d)
Max Cone (ml/m) (e)
Avg Cone (ml/m) (I)
DESTIN DOME-SUMMER
Volume em') (c)
d),
Table 6-7 S
fL
f Shoreline Oiling (C
,
lb
2a
Scenario
4a
4b
2c
2b
d)
1590
72516
1828
72516
10186
72516
21.9
25.2
140
1518
98949
1716
98949
9900
98949
15.3
17.3
100
1518
98949
'l716
98949
9900
98949
15.3
17.3
100
5a
5b
6-50
7~50
1331
960000
38155
960000
108554
960000
0
960000
0
960000
2.9
1.4
82.7
39.7
235.2
113.1
0
0
0
0
1152
480000
31796
48000C
102306
480000
0
480000
0
48000C
5.2
2.4
143.1
66.2
460.3
213.1
0
0
0
0
1152
1140000
31796
1140000
102306
1140000
0
1140000
0
1140000
4.6
I
127.2
27.8
409.2
89.7
0
0
0
0
1152
900000
31796
900000
102306
900000
0
900000
0
900,000
5.5
1.3
153.6
35.3
494.4
113.7
0
0
0
0
(d)
Max Cone (m3/m) (e)

Avg Cone (m3/m) (I)
LOUISIANA-WINTER
Volume (m") (e)
30(720)
1518
98949
1716
98949
9900
98949
15.3
17.3
100
(d)
Max Cone (m3/m) (e)

Avg Cone (ml/m) (I)
~157~
009094
Launch
Time To
Site
Sbore(a)
FLOWER GARDENS- SUMMER
23(552)
Volume (mi (e)
I(d)
Max Com: (ml/m) (e)
Avg Cone (m3/m) (I)
FLOWER GARDENS-WINTER
30(720)
Volume (mJH e)
I(d)
Max Cone (ml/m) (e)
Avg Cone (ml/m) (I)
LOUISIANA-SUMMER
30(720}
Volume 1m') Ie)
Table 6-7 S
_..... -
... _--
...
Launch
fL
Is of Shoreline Oiling (C
Time To
Shore (a)
Scenario
4a
4b
Ib
2a
2b
2c
6-50
-----~--
-158-
7-50
009095
Sa
5b
I
DEEPWATER-SUMMER
30(720)
0
0
1518
1716
9900
0
Volume (m~ ( e )
98949
98949
98949
idl
15.3
17.3
Max Cone (ml/m) (e)
100
Avg Cone (m3/m) (f)
DEEPWATER-WINTER
30(720)
0
0
1518
1716
9900
0
Volume (m~ ( e )
98949
98949
98949
ICd)
15.3
17.3
100
Max Cone (m3/m) (e)
Avg Cone (m3/m) (f)
a. Median length of time rquired for oil slick or spillet to travel from the spill site to the nearest shoreline (See Figure 6-3)
b. Estimated length of time required for oil to become fully emulsified under given conditions.
c. Volume of oil remaining when oil strands on shore
d. Length of shoreline oiled. For batch spills, equals width of slick at time of stranding. For blowouts, total width of all segments oiled (see Figure 6-2)
e. Maximum concentration maximum level of shoreline oiling. For batch spills, equals volume/length of shore oiled. For blowout spill, equals
(volume x proportion of oil stranding in segment receiving highest proportion ofhits)1 width of segment.
f. Average oil concentration of oil on shore. For blowout spills onl}" equals (volume)/(number of segments oiled x width of segment)
Site
d)
009096
6.3.1 Analysis of Spill Scenarios

6.3.1.1 Scenario Mid-Pointl2b/Summer
This spill is a case in which a large proportion of the oil would reach shore if the spill were left
untreated, but in which dispersion could be accomplished well offshore.
The MP/2b/Summer spill is a batch discharge of3180 m3 of Average-E oil. Under average summer
wind conditions the slick would move northward. If left untreated, it would require four or more
days to reach the nearest point of land and could strand at some point within segments 9 to 12.
(Figure 6-2, 6-3, Map-6-1). For purposes ofthis analysis it has been assumed thatthe oil strands near
Galveston Bay in segment 9, near 94 28' 30"W; 29 29' OO''N. At the point of stranding, an amount
of1935 m3 ofthe oil persists, resulting in contamination of an 18-km length of shoreline ata level of
102 m3 of oil per meter of shoreline (See Table 6-7). As discussed in Chapter 5, this spill could
theoretically be treated ful1y with dispersants within 48 hours after the spill, within 28 kIn ofthe spill
site. All dispersant spraying would take place at distances greater than 74km from land, over depths
of20 to 40 m.
The results of the impact analysis are provided in Tables 6-8a, b, and c. Table 6-8a summarizes the
information concerning VECs at risk from this spill, based on the TCOSPR Toolkit (1999) and Table
6-8b summarizes the corresponding output of the MIRG/SL Ross model. The information
concerning impact of untreated and dispersed spills from both of these sources are combined and
summarized in Table 6-8c. The combined results can be summarized as follows.
In the untreated case, this spi II threatens to contaminate an 18-km section of shorel ine at an average
level of 102 liters of oil per linear meter of shoreline. This level of contamination would require
cleanup. This shoreline segment is also an amenity beach; this level of contamination and the
associated cleanup activities would certainly disrupt its use as a recreational resource for at least
many weeks. The level ofimpact for this recreational resource is LOW, because it is localized and of
relatively short duration. The effective use of dispersants offshore would reduce the level of
shoreline oiling to a negligible level and reduce the level ofimpact to NO EFFECT.
-159-
009097
The untreated case would also pose a risk to local marine and coastal birds, including at least three
endangered species: brown pelicans, least terns and piping plover. Only the local area would be
affected. but the amount of oil involved would be sufficient to cause at least some mortalities among
the more vulnerable species (e.g., pelicans, terns, skimmers). Risks to the less vulnerable shorebird
species are less certain. The levels of risk to wildlife are modest and should be rated as VERY LOW.
However, because some endangered species are at risk, the level of risk to these species is rated as
MEDIUM. The effective use of dispersants offshore would eliminate this impact.
The oil slick traverses coastal areas inhabited by a number offinfish and shellfish species. While the
spill poses very little risk of mortality to these stocks, the presence of oil slicks on the water will
cause localized, short-term disruptions in fishing activities for several very important species,
including shrimp and menhaden. These effects are small and are rated as VERY LOW.
Dispersing the spill offshore might offer some protection to the white shrimp and menhaden fisheries
in the shallow nearshore areas and the impacts on these would be reduced to NO EFFECT.
Dispersing the spi1l would raise the potential impacts on the brown shrimp fishery. Although there
appears to be little risk of mortality to the stock, the cloud of dispersed oil and the possibility of
contamination of the catch might result in closure ofthe fishery or con4emnation of catches. This
problem might persist for weeks to months, until it could be demonstrated that the habitat and fish
tissues are free from spill-related contamination.
Net Cbange in Environmental Impact. On balance, the net effect of using dispersants appears
to be positive. Dispersing offshore keeps the oil out ofthe nearshore area and thereby reduces the
risks to: 1) the wildlife, including the endangered species; 2) the recreational beach; and 3) the
nearshore fisheries for white shrimp and menhaden. These benefits appear to clearly outweigh
the cost of the temporary disruption to the brown shrimp fishery, despite the fact that this fishery
is by far the most lucrative in the state. Therefore, there would be a net environmental benefit
associated with dispersant use in this offshore spill scenario.
-160-
009098
Map 6-1 Movement of Untreated and Chemically Dispersed Spills: Scenario Mid-Pointl2b/Summer
1:3
14
Legend
~
15
~Untreated
- - Land Segment Boundaries
La'Wlch Site
1tm.10!llr-~O::::::E63;;a::::J:E3a:=E3E3:::::::EF3;;a::::J:F~OOltm.
280 15
SIlo 0'
93 30'
-161-
009099
Table 6-8a Oil-Sensitive Resources at Risk from Untreated Spill:

MidpoinV2b/Summer (from TCOSPR 1999)(a)
Components
SHORELINES (km)
Marsh Salt/Brackish
~sed Tidal Flat
Rap
Steep Scarps Sand
Steep Scarps, Clay
Exposed Walls etc
SENSITIVITY POLYGONS
High
B. Pelican (FIE)
LeastTem
Piping Plover
Medium & Low
HUMAN USE
BIRDS-Coastal Species
FIE (d)
mer
Gulis
Sandwich Tern
Least Tern FIE
S-Waders
s
ver
Ruddy Turnstone
Black-Bellied Plover
Sanderling
BIRDS-Offshore Species
Franklin Gull
MARINE MAMMALS
Caplen (b)
11 km
Shoreline Seaments
High Island
13km
Mud Lake
13 km
I
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
(c 1
18.:'~'(!1
.( c 1
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
B.Pelican (c)
~)(cl
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
~ging
Le
amenity beach
none
amenity beach
none
amenity beach
Brown Pelican FIE

Black Skimmer
Gulls
Brown Pelican
Black Skimmer
Isa;,.O" Tom
Brown Pelican
Black Skimmer
Gulls
1'7~ohT.m
Shorebirds
Piping Plover
Willet
Ruddy Turnstone
BI-Bellied Plover
Sanderling
Shorebirds
Piping Plover
Willet
II
~
Sanderling
Willet
Ruddy Turnstone
BI-Bellied Plover
Sanderiina
Franklin Gull
Franklin Gull
Bottlenosed
s
irds
Plover
Bottlenosed Dolphi
Spanish Mackerel
Spanish Mackerel
Soanish Mackerel
Menhaden
Menhaden
Tarpon
Tarpon
Tarcon
Mullet
Mullet
Red Drum
Red Drum
Red Drum
FI Pompano
FI Pompano
FI Pompano
Crevalle Jack
Crevalle Jack
Sharks
Sharks
Southern Kinafish
Southern Kingfish
Southern Kingfish
Catfish Hardhead
KinOfish Gulf
SHELLFISH
White Shrimp
White Shrimp
White Shrimp
a, From Texas Coastal Oil Spill Planning and Response Toolkit Atlas, 1999.
b. Name of Map, distance is length of Gulf of Mexico shoreline,
c. Refer to Mud Lake section for description
d. FIE = Federal Endangered Species
Dolphin
~
Soanish Mackerel
Menhaden
am
FI Pompano
Sharks
~had
White Shrimp
009100
Table 6-8b
Impacts of Dispersed and Untreated Cases:
Scenario MidDointl2b/Summer (from MIRG/SLRoss)
Overall
Untreated (b,c)
!Valued Environmental
Component (a)
Dispersed
IsHELLFISH/FISHERIES
Brown Shrimp
0(0.2,0.4)
iWhlte Shrimp
0(0.040.3)
0(1.0 2.0)
0.04 (0.03 0.03)
o(O.S)
0.01 (0.01 0.01)
O(OO.S)
O(OO}
Blue Crab
FINFISH/FISHERIES
KingflSh, Southem
O(OO.S}
1At1. Croaker
Snapper, Red
0(00.5)
0(00)
o(0.01 0.01)
Pompano, Florida
0(03.8)
0.03 (0 0.03)
Southem Flounder
0(00.3)
0(0.080)
Mackerel, Spanish
Menhaden
0(00)
0(0.30)
0(00)
0.01 (0.01 0)
MARINE BIRDS
Tem, Least (Texas)

Tem, Royal {Gulf}
Pelican, Brown (Texas)
0.02
0.01
0
Piping Plover (W. Gulf)

sanderling (Gulf)
0.02
Skimmer, Black (W. Gulf)
0.1
Gull, Laughing (Texas)
0.2
0
0
0
Turtle, Leatherback {West AtlantiC)
0.1
6.7
S.7
0
0
SENSITIVE SHORELINESfHABlTAT
iAmenity Beach
PROPERTY
none
SHORELINES
Marsh
Mangrove
Amenity Beach km
Non-Amenity Beach
Tidal Flast
Tidal flat I Mangrocwve
0
0
Stoney waterfront
Rocky Shore
!!wall
LEVEL OF OILING (11m)
0
0
0
0
102
a. Name in brackets identifies the population or stock affected.

. Values in brackets are net reduction in annual yield to the Louisiana and Texas
commercial fisheries, respectively.
Based on output of MIRGfSL Ross Oil Spillimpacl Assessment Model for the Culf of
Mexico (Trudel et al. 1989)
-163-
009101
Table 6-8c Summary of Environmental Risks: Mid Point/2b/Summer

Component (VEC)
Treatment Option
Untreated
Chemically-Dispersed
none
none
SENSITIVE HABITAT
none
WILDLIFE
Medium
No Effect
Least Tern (ElF)
Medium
No Effect
Royal Tern
Very Low
No Effect
Black Skimmer
Very Low
No Effect
Laughing Gull
Very Low
No Effect
Medium'
No Effect
Very Low
No Effect
Kemp:s ridley Sea Turtle (ElF)
Low
No Effect
Leatherback Sea Turtle (ElF)
Low
No Effect
Brown Shrimp
Very Low
Low
White Shrimp
Very Low
Very Low
Menhaden
Very Low
No Effect
Spanish Mackerel
No Effect
No Effect
Drum
No Effect
No Effect
Red Snapper
No Effect
No Effect
Piping Plover (ElF)

Sanderling
MARINE REPTILES
SHORELINES
Sand/Gravel Beach
18km
HUMAN USE FEATURE

Amenity Sand/Gravel Beach
Low
No Effect
a. FIE = Endangered Species Federally

-164-
009102
6.3.1.2 Scenario Texas NS/2b/Summer
This scenario was selected because the spill takes place closer to shore than any other and therefore
poses the greatest risk of interacting with the shallow nearshore environment.
This is a batch spill of3180 m3 of Average-E oil. Under average summer wind conditions, this spill
would move northward and ifleft untreated reaches land very quickly, within 2 to 3 days, stranding
at some point within segments 3 to 5 (Figure 6-2, 6~3, Map 6-2). For purposes of this analysis, it has
been assumed that the oil strands in Segment 5, on Matagorda Island near San Antonio Bay near
9634' 50" W; 2815'06" N. At this point 2078 m3 of oil persists, oiling a stretch of shoreline 4.1 km
long at a concentration of 499 11m (Table 6-7). As described above, this spill could be theoretically
fully treated within 48 hours after the spill, within a distance of 40 km from the spill site. The spill
site lies at a distance of 42 km from the nearest point of land, in 50m+ deep water. If dispersant
operations are completed within 48 hours, spraying would initially take place in deep, offshore
waters (pre-authorized zone), but operations on the second day will take place in or near the shallow
waters.
Data concerning the environmental risks derived from TCOSPR (1999) and the MIRGISLRoss
Model are summarized in Table 6-9. The untreated spill threatens to oil a 4-km stretch of shoreline at
a level of 499 11m of sandy shoreline. This contamination would require cleanup. The shoreline is an
amenity beach. This level of oiling, coupled with the associated cleanup activities would render this
portion of the beach, as well as adjacent sections unusable for a period of weeks during a portion of
the peak season. The level of impact for this recreational resource is LOW. This section of shoreline
is also a part ofthe Matagorda Island State Park and National Wildlife Refuge. Shoreline oiling may
also reduce visitation to the park causing a LOW impact for this feature as well. However, MMS
GOM OCS (1998) suggests that the potential impact of shoreline contamination on overall park
visitation might be very minor and short-lived, so that this impact might be as low as VERY LOW.
This uncertainty over the potential impact ofthe spill on park usage must be recognized in assessing
NEB. In either case, however, the effective use of dispersants offshore would prevent oiling and
would eliminate this effect.
-165-
009103
The untreated slick would pose a risk to local marine and coastal birds, including three protected
species: brown pelican, least tern and piping plover. Only the immediate local area would be
affected, but the amounts of oil and conditions of the slick are such that at least some individuals
would be killed. Because some mortalities to endangered species can be expected, the level of risk is
MEDIUM. The effective use of dispersants offshore would eliminate this effect and reduce the level
of impact to NO EFFECT.
The trajectory of the slick traverses the habitat of all five local species of endangered or protected
sea turtles. The portion of the range of each species involved is very small and the threat to sea
turtles from oil are uncertain. Moreover, although this time of year is the breeding season for these
turtles, sensitivity infonnation indicates there is no nesting activity that takes place on or near the
threatened segments of the coast. However, as these turtles are endangered or protected, the level of
risk is changed from being VERY LOW to LOW. The risk would be reduced by dispersing the slick
near the spill site, thereby minimizing the potential for contact between oil slicks and turtles.
The slick trajectory also traverses areas inhabited by a number of finfish and shellfish species. The
spill poses little risk of mortality to these stocks, but the presence of oil slicks wil1 cause localized,
short-term disruptions of fishing activities. These effects will be brief and localized and are rated as
VERY LOW. Dispersing the spill in the offshore will offer some protection to the white shrimp
fishery that takes place near shore. However, using dispersants near the spill site will result in
elevated levels of contamination in the upper water column in areas where brown shrimp are fished.
Dispersants may increase the impacts on the brown shrimp fishery by increasing the areal extent and
duration ofthe closure ofthe local fishery. Although the effects of dispersion are brief and localized,
the spill occurs in a highly productive shrimp fishing area during an important part of the shrimp
fishing season. As a result the level of risk is rated as LOW.
Net Change in Environmental Impact. The net effect of using dispersants may be positive, but the
decision is not clear cut. Using dispersants near the spill site keeps the oil out ofthe coastal zone and
reduces the risks to: 1) the wildlife, includ ing the endangered or protected species; 2) the recreational
beach and wildlife refuge; and 3) the nearshore fisheries for white shrimp. These benefits may
outweigh the cost of the temporary disruption to the brown shrimp fishery. However, this decision
-166-
009104
will depend on the relative values placed on the resources bythe local human population. The
complexity ofthe judgment is heightened in this particular scenario because the shrimp fishery is by
far the most economically important fishery in Texas (Table 6-2) and this spill takes place both near
the peak in the fishing season in a very productive fishing zone. However, the decision might still
favor dispersants because of two arguments; first, the shrimp fishery might be closed whether
dispersants are used or not, so this lessens the importance of this factor as an argument against
dispersants; and second, the impact of the dispersed oil on the fishery will be short-lived, a few
months at most, while the damages to wildlife may have long-lasting consequences. The uncertainty
surrounding the impact of the spill on visitation at the Matagorda Island State ParkINWR could
influence this decision, in that the greater the potential impact of the untreated spill, the greater the
NEB of dispersant use.
-167-
009105
Map 6-2 Movement of Untreated and Chemically Dispersed Spills: Scenario Texas NS/2b/Summer
6
28" IS'
28" O
21" 45'
Legend
~ Chemically Dispersed
I3!Imm Untreated
I~
21 IS'
Launch Site
21 0'
26 45'
95'" .sO'
-168-
95'" 0'
94" .30'
009106
Table 6-9 Summary of Environmental Risks: Texas Nearshore, Scenario 2b, Summer
Treatment Option
Component (VEC)
Untreated
Chemically-Dispersed (a)
SENSITIVE HABITAT
none
None
none
Brown Pelican (EIF){a)
Medium
No Effect
Least Tern (Elf)
Medium
No Effect
Royal Tern
Very Low
No Effect
Black Skimmer
Very Low
No Effect
Medium
No Effect
Sanderling
Very Low
No Effect
Snowy Plover
Very Low
No Effect
Peregrine Falcon
Very Low
No Effect
Kemp=s ridley Sea Turtle (Elf)
Low
No Effect
Low
No Effect
Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Elf)
Low
No Effect
Green Sea Turtle (ElF)
Low
No Effect
Loggerhead Sea Turtle (TIF)
Low
No Effect
White Shrimp
Very Low
Very Low (Low)
Brown Shrimp
Very Low
Low (Medium)
Atlantic Croaker
Very Low
Low
4km
Low
No Effect
Very Low - Low
No Effect
WILDLIFE
Piping Plover (Elf)
MARINE REPTILES
SHORELINES
Sand Scarps, Sand Beach
HUMAN USE FEATURE
Amenity Sand Beach
Matagorda Island SPINWR
a. FIE:= Endangered Species Federally, TIF=Threatened Federally

-169-
009107
6.3.1.3 Scenario Destin Dome/2b/Summer
All of the scenarios in this analysis, except this one, involve spills that strand on the barrier islands
off the Texas coast. This scenario has been included to consider the environmental issues in a
different part of the Gulf.
This is a batch spill of3180 m 3 of Average-E oil. Under summer winds, this spill would move NE
and would land, on average in 9 days, stranding at some point within segments 5 to 17 (based on
Price et at. 1998) (Figure 6-2, 6-3, Map 6-3). For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that
the oil strands in Segment 10, near the entrance to Mobile Bay and the eastern end of Mississippi
Sound. At this point 1790 m3 of oil persists, oiling a stretch of shoreline more than 24 km long at a
concentration of 74 11m (Table 6-7). The spill could be dispersed 48 hours after the spill, within a
distance of28 km ofthe spill site. The spill site lies at a distance of33 km from the nearest point of
land, in 46m+ deep. water. If dispersant operations are completed within 48 hours of the time of the
spill, spraying would take place in offshore waters (pre-authorized zone) further than 28 km from
shore in depths of20 to 30 m. The resulting cloud of dispersed oil would be carried westward.
Data concerning the environmental risks derived from the Gulf-Wide Information System and the
MIRG/ SLRoss Model are summarized in Table 6-10. The oil from the untreated spill will strand on
the barrier islands and within Mississippi Sound. Since the oil will enter the sensitive Mississippi
Sound system, the impacts ofthe untreated spill can be expected to be greater than those seen in any
of the Western Gulfspills. The spill will contaminate several tens of kilometers ofsand beach and
coastal marsh at a level of 79 m3 of oil per meter of shoreline. This contamination would require
cleanup. The shoreline is an amenity beach. Oil contamination and cleanup activities would render
this and adjacent portions of beach unusable for a period of weeks during a portion of the peak
season. The level of impact for this recreational resource is LOW. The oil-threatened marsh and
oyster reef are both important habitat features. The marsh is highly sensitive and is likely to suffer, at
least, mortality of vegetation, with recovery taking several years. This a small portion of the marsh in
the Mobile Bay-Mississippi Sound-Chandeleur Sound system, but it is an extensive amount of
habitat from a local perspective, so the impact level is set at MEDIUM. The likelihood of damage to
the oysterreefis less and risks are rated at VERY LOW. There are risks of mortalitY to a number of
-170-
009108
wildlife species, including at least two endangered bird species. There are also risks to a number of
fisheries. The most notable are the risks to the inshore shellfish species, oysters and crab. Oil could
be prevented from entering the bay system and the risks could be reduced to NO EFFECT by
dispersing the oil in open coastal waters near the spill site.
Dispersing the spill offshore, near the spill site will result in localized contamination of the surface
waters. The dispersed oil is unlikely to cause mortality to adult fish and shellfish in the area, but it
may result in a temporary loss of fishing opportunity for shrimp and finfish fishing in the area
outside Mobile Bay. This disruption may be brief, lasting from weeks to months. The impacts on
these shrimp and finfish fisheries are rated as VERY LOW to MEDIUM, depending on the species.
Net Change in Environmental Impact. The environmental benefits of keeping the oil out of the
Mississippi Sound system are clear. Dispersing the oil in the open coastal waters protects
important habitat, inshore fisheries and wildlife. The potential cost of dispersion to the
commercial fishery would be considerable and cannot be overlooked. However, these short-term
costs to the fisheries are clearly outweighed by the environmental gains.
-171-
009109
Map 6-3 Movement of Untreated and Chemically-Dispersed Spills: Destin Dome/2b/Summer
Legend
.~ Olemically Dispersed
~ Untreated
- - Land Seqment Boundaries

Launch Si te
~o 15
,+"
1=10
0
88 .30'
88 0'
87 .30'
-172-
Ed
F3
FA
&3
~o
86 0'
009110
Table 6-10 Summary of Environmental Risks: Destin Dome/2b/Summer

Valued Environmental Component
Treatment Option
Untreated
Chemically-Dispersed
Medium
No Effect
Very Low
No Effect
Medium
No Effect
High
No Effect
Royal Tern
Very Low
No Effect
Black Skimmer
Very Low
No Effect
Laughing Gull
Very Low
No Effect
Sanderling
Very Low
No Effect
Low
No Effect
Very High
No Effect
Blue Crab
Low
No Effect
Sea TroutslDrums
Low
Low
Brown Shrimp
No Effect
Medium
White Shrimp
Very Low
Very Low
Menhaden
Very Low
Medium
SHORELINES (kro)
Sand Beach
20.7
Coastal Marsh
7.9
Low
No Effect
SENSITIVE HABITAT (a)

Coastal Marsh (Mobile-Chandeleur)
Oyster Reef (Mobile-Chandeleur)
WILDLIFE (a)(b)
Brown Pelican (Elf)
Least Tern (Elf)
MARINE REPTILES
Leatherback Sea Turtle (Elf)
FINFISH, SHELLFISH AND FISHERIES (c)
Oyster
HUMAN USE FEATURE

Amenity Sand/Gravel Beach
a. Brackets indicate population or stock

b. FIE = Endangered Species Federally
c. All impacts are on fisheries. Target fisheries are those landing catches in Mississippi and
Alabama
-173-
009111
6.3.1.4 Scenario Texas/2bIWinter
This scenario is included in order to consider the effect of season on impacts and benefits by
contrasting it to scenario Texas/2b/Summer, analyzed above.
In this winter batch spill of3180 m3, winds would move the spill to the west, rather than to the north
and if left untreated the slick would reach land, within 6 days, stranding within segments 2 to 4
(Figure 6-2, Map 6-4). We assume that the oil strands at the margin of Segments 2 and 3, on Padre
Island off Baffin Bay near 9720' W; 2714'30"N. At this point 1861 m 3 of oil strands on shore,
oil ing a stretch of shoreline 15 km long at a concentration of 123 11m (Table 6-7). This spill could be
fully treated within 48 hours after the spill, within 28 kIn of the spill site, while the spill was still
more than 25 kIn from the nearest point of land, in waters 20 to 60m deep.
The untreated winter spill threatens to contaminate a 15-km stretch of sandy shoreline at a level of
123 11m and would require cleanup (Table 6-11). The shoreline is an amenity beach and this oiling,
coupled with the associated cleanup activities would render this portion of the beach and adjacent
areas unusable for a period of weeks. The level ofimpact for this recreational resource is LOW. This
shoreline is part of the Padre Island National Seashore. As discussed above in Scenario Texas
NS/2b/Summer, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the potential impact of shoreline oiling
on potential visitor traffic in the Park during the spill and cleanup. For this reason the level of impact
is rated as VERY LOW to LOW.lO The effective use of dispersants offshore would prevent oiling
and would eliminate this effect.
The untreated slick would pose a risk to local wildlife. At this time of year the species at risk include
some of the same species that are at risk during the summer months, but also includes some species
that breed in more northern latitudes and winter in the south. The resources at significant risk include
the protected species: brown pelican and piping plover, as well as other marine associated birds,
waders and shore birds, including snowy plover, sanderling and laughing gull. The amounts of oil
10 In addition, it appears that the physical layout of the park, with access via only a single road, may mean that the spill
and cleanup operations may completely prevent access to sections ofthe park south of the contaminated area. This would
mean that a larger portion of the park would be inaccessible for a period ofa few weeks and the impact would be LOW.
-174-
009112
and conditions of the slick are such that a portion of the individuals present would be killed.
However, because all ofthe species in question are broadly distributed throughout the area and since
only the local area would be affected, the risks to non-protected species would be VERY LOW.
Because of their protected status the risks to protected species are rated at MEDIUM. The effective
use of dispersants offshore would prevent oil from reaching these species and reduce the level of
impact to NO EFFECT.
The trajectory ofthe slick traverses the habitat of all five local species of endangered or threatened
sea turtles. However, the distribution range of aU of these species is very large and at this time of
year all individuals are widely dispersed throughout their ranges. The portion of the range of each
species involved with the spill is very, very small and the vulnerability of sea turtles to oil slicks is
uncertain, so the risk of significant mortalities from this spill is probably small. However, as all of
. these turtles are endangered or threatened worldwide, the level of risk is taken to be LOW.
Dispersing the slick near the spill site would reduce the risk.
The slick trajectory traverses offshore and coastal areas inhabited by a number of finfish and
shellfish species. The presence of oil slicks can cause short-term disruptions to any fishing activity in
progress at the time ofthe spill. These effects will be localized and of short duration, so risks to these
fisheries are rated as VERY LOW. In this case the spill occurs at the low point of the fishing season
for the shrimp fishery and, therefore, the level of risk to this fishery as a whole is less than VERY
LOW. Dispersing the spill in the offshore will eliminate any risk to the inshore shrimp fishery.
Using dispersants in the near offshore will probably result in a temporary closure of the fishing
zones involved, for as long as elevated levels of hydrocarbons are detectible in the water column.
The resulting impacts on the brown shrimp fishery would be VERY LOW. One additional
consideration in this connection is oil contaminating the shoreline and nearshore sub tidal area might
serve as a source of contamination for nearshore shrimp fishing areas for some months until cleaned
up. This untreated oil might disrupt the nearshore portion of the shrimp fishery locally for months
after the spill, thereby increasing the impact of the spill somewhat.
-175-
009113
Net Change in Environmental Impact. The net effect of using dispersants will be positive in
this case. Dispersant use near the spill site keeps the oil out of the coastal zone and reduces the
risks to: 1) the wildlife, including the endangered species; and 2) the recreational beach.
Dispersant use still poses a risk to the shrimp fishery in the near offshore waters, but these effects
small because these fisheries are less active at this time of year. In short, there is a net
environmental advantage to using dispersants in this winter spill. The advantages of dispersant
use are more clear cut in the winter spill because of the seasonality of the fishery.
-176-
009114
Map 6-4 Movement of Untreated and Chemically-Dispersed Spills: Texas/2bIWinter
28 15'
28 0'
Legend
~ Chemically Dispersed
27" 30'
~Untreated
Land Segment Boundaries

Launch Site
2
970'
96" 30'
95" 0'
27 15'
009115
Table 6-11 Summary of Environmental Risks: Texas Nearshore, Scenario 2b, Winter
Component (VEC) .
Treatment Option
Untreated
Chemically-Dispersed (a)
none
None
Brown Pelican (ElF) (a)
Medium
No Effect
Piping Plover (ElF)
Medium
No Effect
Snowy Plover
Very Low
No Effect
Loon
Very Low
No Effect
Sanderling
Very Low
No Effect
Laughing Gull
Very Low
No Effect
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (ElF)
Low
No Effect
Low
No Effect
Hawksbill Sea Turtle (ElF)
Low
No Effect
Green Sea Turtle (ElF)
Low
No Effect
Loggerhead Sea Turtle (TIF)
Low
No Effect
White Shrimp
Very Low
No effect
Brown Shrimp
Very Low
Low
Atlantic Croaker
Very Low
Low
4km
Low
No Effect
Very Low-Low
No Effect
SENSITIVE HABITAT
none
WILDLIFE
MARINE REPTILES
SHORELINES
Sand Scarps, Sand Beach
HUMAN USE FEATURE
Amenity Sand Beach
Padre Island Nat. Seashore
a. FIE = Endangered Species Federally. TIF = Threatened Federally.

b. All impacts are on fisheries. Target fisheries are those landing catches in Texas.
-178-
009116
6.3.1.5 Blowout Scenario Texas Nearshore/4b/Summer
This scenario is included in order to address differences between blowout spills and batch spills in
tenns of their overall impact and the net environmental benefit of dispersant use.
This scenario involves a blowout spill discharging 795 m3 of A v-E oil per day over four days, for a
total discharge of3180 m 3 The spill is simulated as a continuous discharge ofa series of small (0.8
m3) spillets, each of which moves independently under wind and current conditions encountered at
the time of discharge. According to the oil spill analysis in Price et al. (2000), under average summer
wind conditions, these spillets would move in directions ranging from NW to SW, with the majority
of the oil would reaching land quickly, within 2 to 4 days. Similarly, these spillets would
contaminate shoreline segments 0 through 6 in the western Gulf to some degree, with most ofthe oil
stranding on segments 3 to 5 (Figure 6-2, 6-3, Map 6_5)11. For purposes of this analysis, it has been
assumed that the oil will strand in segments 2 to 5. A total of 1947 m3 of oil will accumulate on
shore and the average levels of shoreline oiling in these segments will be as follows: Segment 2 =
1.6 11m; Segment 3
4.5 11m; Segment 4 = 12 11m; Segment 5 = 11 11m. Clearly, according to this
simulation, a far greater length of shoreline would become oiled by this blowout than by the batch
spill of the same size (Section 6.3.1.2).
As described in section 5.3.1.4, this spill could be largely dispersed at sea, with all dispersant
operations taking place within 10 km or less of the blowout site. The spill site lies at a distance of 42
km from the nearest point of land, in 50 m+ deep water. If dispersant operations are completed
within 10 km of the spill site, spraying would take place in deep, offshore waters.
It is important to recall that the dispersant operation was not fully effective in treating the oil in this
scenario. In fact, approximately 250 m3 of crude oil escaped the dispersant operation without being
3
chemically dispersed. Allowing for weathering, this would translate to approximately 150 m of
crude oil arriving at shorelines, or less than 10% as much as in the untreated case. On average, the
resulting levels of shoreline oiling would be less than 111m. These levels of shoreline oiling are too
1J
In Price et aJ. (2000), Segment 0 represents International Land.
-179-
009117
low to require cleanup and would pose little risk to even the most sensitive shorelines and species
(Table 6-4).
Data concerning the environmental risks derived from TCOSPR 1999 and the MIRGISLRoss Model
are presented briefly in Tables 6-12a and 6-12b, respectively, and all of the information is
summarized in Table 6-12c. The untreated spill threatens to contaminate a far larger area of
nearshore water and shoreline and cause far more damage than the batch spill of similar size. The
blowout contaminates over 100 Ian of shoreline at oil concentrations greater than 10 11m of
shoreline. This contamination would require cleanup. This oiling, and the widespread cleanup
activity would disrupt recreational use of the beaches throughout the affected region for months
during a high-use period. The level of impact for this recreational resource is MEDIUM. The
sections of shoreline affected are part of Matagorda Island State ParklNational Wildlife Refuge and
Padre Island National Seashore. Large sections of the shore of these areas would become oiled and
this would disrupt their use temporarily. The level of impact is rated as MEDIUM. ( NOTE: It is
important to recognize that these impacts are rated as "MEDIUM" because, although the disruption
is very extensive, it is of relatively short duration 1 year)).
The untreated spill would pose a risk to marine and coastal birds, including three protected speciesbrown pelican, least tern and piping plover-over a wide area. Slick thicknesses and concentrations
of oil in the nearshore foraging areas will be sufficient to cause mortalities. This would occur over a
large area and would threaten a significant proportion ofthese local populations. For this reason the
impacts on the endangered species are rated as VERY HIGH.
The trajectory of the slick traverses the habitat of all five local species of endangered or threatened
sea turtles, but more importantly, this spill would contaminate sections of nesting beach for the
Kemp=s Ridley sea turtle, the most endangered of the sea turtles, in or near nesting season. The risk
to the Kemp=s Ridley sea turtle is rated as VERY HIGH. All of these risks would be reduced to NO
EFFECT or at worst, VERY LOW, if the spill were dispersed at source.
As discussed above, dispersing the spill near its source would cause a disruption of the important
brown shrimp fishery due to closure or contamination of catch. This impact would be very localized
-180-
009118
and temporary (weeks to months). Indeed, the area of contamination would be smaller than in the
batch spill because dispersant spraying would take place within a much smaller area than in the
batch spill. As a result, the impacts would be LOW. Although the overall impact is rated as LOW,
the potential economic costs could be significant because: a) the shrimp fishery is very highly
valued; and b) the spill occurs in a productive area at the height of the season.
Net Cbange in Environmental Impact. The environmental benefits of dispersant use in this
scenario are overwhelmingly evident. The analysis suggests that the untreated blowout will
contaminate a much larger area than the batch spill. The average levels of contamination are lower
than in the batch spill (because the oil is spread over a much larger area), but levels ofcontamination
in segments 4 and 5 are sufficient to cause significant effects and impacts. As a result, the impact of
this untreated blowout will be far greater than the corresponding batch spill.
The risks associated with dispersing the blowout spill are different from those of the batch spill. On
the one hand, the risks to the fisheries would be less in the blowout spill than in the batch spill,
because in the blowout spill dispersants are sprayed further offshore and over a smaller area than in
the batch spill, causing in a smaller area of contamination in an area oflesser risk. This is true even
though the spraying takes place over a period of four days in the blowout vs. 2 days in the batch
spill. On the other hand, the dispersant operation was not fully effective in the blowout scenario,
because of the "overnight effect", and as a result, a small proportion of the spilled oil came ashore.
The resulting level of shoreline oiling was low, less than 111m. This level is well below the threshold
level needed to cause effects or to necessitate a disruptive, large-scale shoreline cleanup (Table 6-4,
above). All things considered, therefore, there is a large environmental benefit to dispersing this
blowout spill.
This situation may not always hold for all spills. Small blowouts that take place far offshore may
cause only low levels of contamination (e.g., Scenario 4b at the Deepwater launch site). Even though
large areas of shoreline contamination may be involved, the levels of contamination may be far too
small to cause significant damage or to even be detectible. In these cases the environmental gains
associated with dispersion may not be as great.
-181-
009119
Map 6-5 Movement of Untreated and Chemically-Dispersed Spills:

BlowoutlTexas Nearshore/4b/Summer
1
0FG
Legend
t/'/Mj~J Chemically Dispersed
~.'-...- .. Untreated. (high risk)
- - - - -. Untreated (low risk)

__ Land Segment Boundaries 27 0'
(2J
-182-
Launch Site
Tabl. 6 ..12a OU"Sensltive Resources at Risk from U,ltt'eated Blowout Spill:
Valued
E nvlronm ."tal
Com Donents
MMS Shore S ...
SHORELINES (kml
Marsh SaU/81'aekish
Exposed Tidal Fla'
Rip Rap
Mixed SandlGravel
Sleep S~arp Sand
Ste.p Scarps. Clay
exposed Walls.elc
Exposed Rlprap
Jome.
Pass
SENSIT'Y PY'GON
HIGH
Birds (Hlghl
Terns
IE of
Potr
IE of
Yarb'o
Oorlo
PltSI
0
0
0
0
1& Ibarl
0
0
0
0
Bird
S
Bird
Is SE
3
Is
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15 (bar, 1& (bar, 15 (ban
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wader,
Shore Birds
Piping Plover
Crane
Is
Is
PI
Is.
NW
Arant$
SW
3
0
0
2.S
0
12
0
0
II
X
X
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Snowy Plover
0
0
0
0
0
H
1I
X
X
0
0
13
0
0
0
16
0
Allyn
Estes
4
BI"1It
4
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Aransas P
0
0
0
0
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
12
0
0
0
St
Bav SE
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
X
X
P'ther
elias
0
0
13
0
0
0
Snowy Plover
Least Tern
Terns
Shore BIrds
W odlng Birds
PeragrJne Falcon
Turtle Nullng (1)
long
Cavo
NE
S
10
5
SW
15
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Padre Is: NSS
0
0
M
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X nest
X
X
X
X
X
X
)(
X
X
X
X
K
~ ~~~
~~~~-
-183-
Other Birds
HUMAN USE
Matagorda Island SP/NWR
PI
0
0
16
0
0
0
Pass
P'lher
Pt
6
Brown Pelican
lOW
Birds (High)
Peflcans
SI
Chas
BavSW
009120
Wading Birds
Reddish Egret
Peregrine Falcon
Sea Turtles
Kemp', Ridley ST
loggerhead ST
Gr.en ST
Fish
MEDIUM
III,do (Hlghl
Piping Plover
Crane
PU.
PeUcaos
Texas/4b/Summer from TCOSPR 1999
'--~~~
'-------
X
L~~_
009121
TaHe 6-12b IITpICls clllspersed cn:t U irlBed C'ases: BlOJIOt SPII

Sceraio Texas M:IarshoreI4tiSlmre' (franMfGSl.Rss)
R:&:l.rce (a)
EroAn STirrp
Wile 9"rirrp
.AtI. Oo:i<er
Ba1<Dun
R:dish Ega ty\I. QJf)
SxtyTem
Tern, !..eat (Tx)
Tern, Ri (QJf)
Rig!iB:jrd (g.if)
EroAn Feiicm
SnBtirg (QJf)
S<irrrrer, Sa::!< ty\I. QJf)
LagirgWI (Tea;)
EW 8:ge ty\I. QJf)
I<srp's FIey Sf
Tu'IIe, I..eatata::k rtJ.I!J)
l.tiraie:l Case(b}
9:grst19:grst 9:grst
2
3
4
0(0.7)
0(1.6)
0(1.1)
0(0.2)
0
0(0.2)
0(0.6)
0(0.4)
0(0.1)
0(2.2)
0(0.6)
0
0
0
0
Q2
0.04
0.01
0.00
1.1
0.1
0.5
0
Q2
0.01
Qa2
2.9
0.3
0.3
7.8
0.1
0.4
li:i:II.........-u
lhmaIed
Dspersed
5
0(1.9)
0(0.5)
0(0.5)
0
0IeraI1
0(3.6)
0.05 (0.eE)
o (1.5)
0
0
0.a2
2.8
0.6
0.4
10.1
0.1
0.5
0.00
0.4
0.01
03
0.02
0.03
6.8
1.2
1.1A
17.9
Q.94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
25
0
0
0
0
0
10+
0.a2
QCB
0.07
0
0.(6
0.04
QS
0.8
-0
0.01
0.4
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
14
0
0
0
0
18
11
0
0
0
0
0
1.S
4.5
12
11
o.s
Q2
0.01
0.2
c)
S:gn:rt
0(5.2)
0(0.9)
0(1.6)
0(2.8)
Q.42
1.58
1.53
Q.6
Q.(8
CaseD
Str
3)tJs
o (3.6)
0(3.6)
0.01 (Q01)
0(1.5)
0.05 (0.05)
0(1.5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
0
0
76
25
25
0
0
0
<1
<1
Sm:Iire
IVErsh
~
PrraiIy B:a::tllrn
N:nATaity B:a::tl
Td;jRcst
Td;j flal M:rg'ooN.e
Screj~
R:x:.ky
VIl:III
s-cre
IJ:lI.e dSl:redlirg Vm
0
0
a Pae d eses _to rare ct pq:lJaioo a stcxK

b. Pae it esessh::wrecidia1 in ana jed tow III ada! fistaies.
0
0
0
0
0
0
<1
c. Qrrpais::n ct l.tiraie:l Q.e81 \IS. ~ Case Osal. Smrayfa I:lsJ:;em:d Case is VIbst Case t.ase:l en 6 tr em 3) tr vaLeS.
d \kilSS a: S a-d 3) tr sa ifl1;ajs if
009122
Table 6-12c Summary of Environmental Risks: Scenario Texas

Nearsbore/4b/SummerBIowout Spill
Component (VEC)
Treatment Option
Untreated
I Cbemically-Dispersed (a)
SENSITIVE HABITAT
none
none
none
Very High
No Effect
Least Tern (ElF)
Very High
No Effect
Royal Tern
Medium
No Effect
Black Skimmer
Medium
No Effect
Very High
No Effect
Snowy Plover
Medium
No Effect
Peregrine Falcon
Medium
No Effect
Very High
No Effect
Leatherback ST (ElF)
Low
No Effect
Hawksbill ST (ElF)
Low
No Effect
Green ST(EIF)
Low
No Effect
Loggerhead ST (TIF)
Low
No Effect
White Shrimp
Very Low
Very Low (Low)
Brown Shrimp
Very Low
Low (Medium)
Atlantic Croaker
Very Low
Low
>100 km
Amenity Sand Beach
Medium
No Effect
Matagorda Is. SP and NWR
Medium
No Effect
WILDLIFE
Piping Plover (ElF)
MARINE REPTILES
Kemp=s Ridley ST (ElF)
SHORELINES
Sand Scarps and Sand Beach
HUMAN USE FEATURE
b. ElF
= Endangered Species Federally, TIF = Threatened Federally
c. All impacts are on fisheries. Target fisheries are those landing catches inTexas
-185-
009123
6.4 Discussion of Net Environmental Benefit Analysis

The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from this work is that if dispersants are used to treat spills
from MMS-regulated offshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, there will be a net environmental
benefit in almost every case. The reason for this is that the launch sites considered in this study are
all well offshore. In cases in which untreated oil slicks from these sites pose significant
environmental risks, these can be ameliorated through dispersant use for the following reason. If
spills from these sites are sprayed with dispersants within the fairly narrow time window required for
effective dispersant use, the spraying will take place well offshore. The associated environmental
risks from the dispersed oil will be very low or, if they are significant, they will localized, transient
and less than the risks from the untreated spill.
The analysis of scenario Mid-PoinV2b/Summer illustrated that there will be a net environmental
benefit because the untreated spill posed some risks, but the dispersed case posed far fewer risks, in
par because dispersant application occurred offshore. This situation is likely hold in many other
locations in the Gulf, because many sections ofthe coast are at least as sensitive as in this scenario if
not more so, while offshore areas are commonly insensitive to dispersed oil. One exception to this
might be the offshore hard-bottom communities, such as the Flower Garden Banks. However, even
the shallowest of these communities are probably at little risk if dispersants are used nearby. At a
depth of 15+ meters, even the shallowest of these banks will be not be exposed to dispersed oil
concentrations greater than a few hundreds of parts per billion, were dispersants to be used nearby.
These concentrations are far less than those that have caused effects in toxicity experiments
involving corals in the past (Ballou et al. 1989, Knap et al. 1983, Le Gore et al. 1989, Wyers et al.
1986)
The Texas/2b/Summer scenario illustrated that not all scenarios are as straightforward as MidPoinV2b/Summer, because there may be drawbacks in using dispersants on spills from platforms that
are relatively close to shore. In the Texas/2b/Summer case, the drawback involved the risk of
significant losses to the local, highly lucrative shrimp fishery. Commonly, the risk to fisheries from
dispersed oil is one of the greatest concerns of regulators and stakeholders. In this case, the
importance ofthe interaction was amplified by the fact that the most valuable fishery in the state was
-186-
009124
involved and the spill occurred at a critical location and time. When faced with similar trade-offs in
workshops, trustees have traditionally decided to accept the losses to the fisheries on the basis that
these were temporary, while damage to habitat and wildlife was longer lasting. The analysis raised
two additional issues. First, it is difficult to predict the magnitude of the potential impact of
dispersant use on fisheries because fisheries losses result from regulatory closures not from
biological effects. Closures are put in place during spill events by regulators, but to date, few
jurisdictions have established written criteria for implementing closures during spills. As a result, it
is difficult to predict how the spatial extent or the duration of closures will be determined and how
large an impact closures might have. The second issue is that the dispersant decision may be
influenced strongly by the relative values placed on the different resources involved. In the present
project, we have assumed that decision-makers would elect to protect wildlife and habitat at the
expense of fisheries. If the local human population places a higher value on shrimp fishing than on
endangered species, then the assessment of net environmental benefit might not favor dispersants.
The Texas/2b/Winter scenario demonstrated that impacts and NEB may be influenced by the
seasonal habits of the VECs.
The Destin Dome scenario demonstrated that there are important variations from place to place in
the impact potential and NEB of dispersants. In the Gulf, coastal zones vary widely in terms ofthere
sensitivity to untreated slicks, with conditions ranging from the sandy shores of the Texas barrier
islands to the marshes and exposed bay systems of Louisiana and Mississippi. There are also spatial
variations in the sensitivity of the offshore community to dispersed oil, but these differences appear
to be less dramatic, especially across the broad expanse of open shelf in the Northern Gulf. This
appears to confirm that, within the study area, there will be a net benefit of using dispersants on
offshore spills; only the size ofthe benefit will vary from case to case. In short, while there may have
been some uncertainty about the advantage of using dispersants on the spill from the Texas
Nearshore launch site, there should be little uncertainty about using dispersants to keep oil slicks out
of the marshes and open bay systems of the northern Gulf.
The blowout scenario illustrated that the impact of an untreated blowout spi II can be far greater than
that of a batch spill of a similar size and that the NEB of dispersant use may similarly be greater.
-187-
009125
This is because, while the damage caused by a relatively small untreated batch spill will be
concentrated in a relatively small, localized area, the oil from a continuous blowout spill can be
spread over a larger area, causing greater and more widespread contamination and damage. On the
other hand, when dispersants are used to treat a blowout, the contamination and damage that results
are restricted to the immediate vicinity of the spill site to an even greater degree than in the case of
the batch spill.
In this blowout scenario, the dispersant operation was not fully effective in dispersing all ofthe oil in
the offshore. This allowed us to consider the question of "incomplete dispersion." In the present
scenario, the dispersant operation using the C-130/ADDS Pack platform was successful in reducing
the volume of oil arriving at the shoreline by over 90%. The amount of oil surviving the dispersant
operation was small. It posed very little risk and dispersants still offered a net environmental benefit.
This would not have been true if the operation had been far less effective, as in the case of: a) the
present scenario if a less capable dispersant application platform had been used; b) a spill of similar
volume, but with an oil that emulsified more quickly; or c) a much larger spill, such as 5a or 5b that
greatly exceeded the logistics capabilities of even the largest platforms.
The NEB of dispersants may also be less for spills that are launched ':VeIl offshore. It should be
remembered that blowout scenarios 6b and 7b, launched from spill sites that are farther offshore,
dissipated naturally at sea and would have had few impacts in the coastal zone. However, since the
potential persistence of slicks cannot be predicted reliably, it may be prudent to not rely on offshore
spills dispersing naturally before they reach the shoreline.
Realistically, no dispersant operation can be expected to be 100% effective. Therefore, decisionmakers are faced with the problem of assessing the net environmental benefit ofpartially effective
dispersant operations. Unfortunately, impact assessment models are not accurate enough to provide
definitive conclusions in all cases. However, the fol1owing approach offers a partial, interim answer.
For spills that are small enough to be easily treated by the available dispersant response capability,
the amount of oil escaping treatment will be small enough to cause little or no impact. For spills that
are only a few times larger than the upper limit of the dispersant capability, dispersants can yield a
measurable reduction in the impact ofthe slick. According to the analyses of the present scenarios,
-188-
009126
the impact of the dispersed oil wiJ] be smaller than the impact of the reduction in the impact of the
slick, so dispersants still offer a net environmental benefit. For very large spills, dispersion of a small
proportion of the spill may not yield an appreciable reduction in impact, so that the question of net
benefit is moot.
It is concluded that if dispersants are used to treat spills from MMS-regulated offshore facilities in
the Gulf of Mexico, there will be a net environmental benefit in every case where there is a potential
for shoreline oiling. The main reason is that the launch sites considered in this study are all offshore.
If spills from these sites are dispersed in deep water, the environmental risks from the dispersed oil
will be very low and less than the risks from the untreated spill.
-189-
009127
7. Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Likely Dispersibi/ity of GOMR Oils
There are only two publicly available sets of oil property data that are useful for attempting to
predict the chemical dispersibility of GOMR oil spills. The first is an MMS data set on average
density of oils in GOMR plays of hydrocarbon reservoirs. These data show that the thousands of oils
produced in the Gulf are on average very light: the overall mean density is 33 API gravity. This
suggests that in general GOMR oils are likely to be dispersible. The other data set is a selection of28
GOMR oils that MMS has thoroughly tested from a spill-behavior perspective. This data set shows
that 86% of the selected oils will not emulsify quickly if spilled and will remain relatively nonviscous for a reasonable period of time. This means that the spills will likely be amenable to
treatment with dispersants. Overall, the suggestion is that GOMR oil spills are good candidates for
chemical dispersion. However, it remains impossible to predict the dispersibility of any particular
GOMR spill, other than spills of the 28 oils already tested.
The chemical dispersibility of spills ofGOMR oils could be better predicted ifkey information on
the properties and spill-weathering characteristics of more oils were available, but generally this is
not the case. GOMR oil property information is largely operator-confidential. There are three main
ways to deal with this problem of uncertainty regarding spill dispersibility:
1. Identify high-risk GOMR oils (the ones most likely to be spilled) and test them thoroughly
for spill behavior and dispersibility;
2. Expect all spills of GOMR oils to be treatable and dispersible and design response plans
accordingly. During the response, monitor the situation and stop the dispersant operation if
spill dispersion is not proceeding as expected; and
3. Have operators determine the dispersibility oftheir oils (through standard testing procedures)
and have this information available, with proper protection of confidentiality, for
contingency planning and spill response purposes.
-190-
009128
There are advantages and disadvantages ofthe three options. The recommendation is to analyze and
review these, and decide which is the most cost-beneficial planning strategy.
7.2 Response Analysis and Contingency Planning

In this study a wide range ofoil spill scenarios were developed. The variables included: (l) spill type
(blowout versus batch spill); (2) spill size; (3) oil type; and (4) spill location. A detailed analysis of
the scenarios was performed with respect to dispersant-use logistics. The parameters that control the
feasibility and success of a dispersant operation were identified and analyzed. The parameters
included: (1) quantity and location of available dispersant; (2) type, availability, number and location
of platforms for applying dispersant; (3) response time for platforms to arrive on scene; and (4)
ability of platforms to remain and be re-supplied on site.
To analyze the various spill scenarios, the logistical options and the operational efficiencies
associated with these, a spreadsheet program (in MS Excel) was constructed and used. The results
are as follows:
1. Environmental conditions (winds, waves, visibility conditions) in the study area are
amenable to dispersant effectiveness and operations.
2. The scenarios fall into three groups from the perspective of dispersant-use feasibility and net
environmental benefits:
a. Scenarios in which oils disperse very quickly, by natural means for which dispersant
use would not appreciably speed up the dispersion rate or reduce the environment
impact;
b. Scenarios in which oils emulsify very quickly allowing little time for mounting a
dispersant operation. In these scenarios dispersant use can do little to reduce the
persistence ofthe spill and therefore influence the impact of the oil slicks;
-191-
009129
c. Scenarios in which spill sizes are appropriate and time windows are long enough to
permit operations to disperse enough of the spill to greatly reduce the impact of the
spill and potentially yield an net environmental benefit.
3. The results ofthe logistic analysis demonstrate that dispersant delivery capabilities, in terms
of volumes sprayed per day varies greatly among spray platforms. In planning, it will be
critical to match the capabilities of the platforms to the demands of the spill (type of spill,
size of spill, distance offshore). In addition, it will be important to recognize that delivery
capabilities estimated here are maximum theoretical values, and make no allowance for
factors that will reduce the efficiency of operations, such as mechanical breakdowns,
maintenance, or demands of coordinating dispersant spraying with other aspects of
dispersant operations or other spill response activities. Actual delivery capabilities will be
less than theoretical ones.
4. Under our study assumptions, the largest spill that can be fully treated by a single unit ofthe
existing response platforms in the Gulfarea is approximately 3180 m3 for batch spills or 800
m3 Iday for 4 days for continuous spills. Of course somewhat larger spills could be treated
with the coordinated use of a number of units and platform types. While some spills will fall
into these categories, at present the behavior of any given spill cannot be accurately
predicted. It is important to recognize that the results of the scenarios analyzed here were
based on computer simulations and assumptions concerning dispersant effectiveness rates
and rates of emulsification. Many ofthe processes involved cannot be estimated precisely
enough to allow an accurate prediction of the effectiveness of a dispersant operation in
advance. Rather, during an actual spill, it will be necessary to make decisions about the
potential usefulness of dispersants and the effectiveness of dispersant applications based on
direct real-time observations. For this reason, it will be necessary to have these monitoring
capabilities in place if dispersants are to be used.
-192-
009130
7.3 Net Environmental Benefits of Dispersant-Use

One very obvious conclusion to be drawn from this work is that, when spi lis from offshore platforms
threaten to contaminate nearby shorelines and when these spills can be effectively dispersed, there
wi II be a net environmental benefit in almost every case. The reason for this is that the launch sites
are well offshore. If a spill from one of these launch sites is to be effectively treated it must be fully
treated within a few kilometers of the spill site. Here the spill still lies in deep offshore waters where
environmental risks of chemical dispersion are small and considerably less than the risks posed by
the untreated spill. The scenarios analyzed in this study showed that the size ofthe impact and the
net environmental benefit from dispersant use will vary with spill conditions (spill location, season,
type of spill). However, in all cases the net environmental benefit will favor dispersant use.
-193-
009131
8. References
Allen, A.A. and D.H. Dale. 1995. Dispersant mission planner: A computerized model for the
application of chemical dispersants on oil spills. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and
Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June 14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta. p. 393-414.
Anderson, C.M. and R.P. LaBelle. 1994. Comparative occurrence rates for offshore spills. Spill
Science & Technology Bulletin, Vol. 1, No.2, p. 131-141. Elsevier Sciences Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
API. 1986. U.S. crude and products imports for 1985. Report prepared for the American Petroleum
Institute by John G. Yeager Associates, July 1986. 16 pp.
Audunson, T. 1980. The fate and weathering of surface oil from the Bravo blowout. Marine
Environmental Research No.3, p 35-61.
Aurand, D. 1998. Integration of Laboratory, Mesocosm and field research on the ecological
consequences of dispersant use for marine oil spills into response planning. In Trudel, B.K.
(ed.). Dispersant Application in Alaska: A Technical Update. Prince William Sound Oil Spill
Recovery Center, Cordova, AK.
Baca, BJ. and C.D. Getter. 1984. The toxicity of oil and chemically dispersed oil to the seagrass
Thalassia testudinum. In Allen, T.E. (ed.) Oil Spill Chemical Dispersants: Research, Experience
and Recommendation. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, ASTM
Special Technical Publication 840, p 314-323.
Ballou, T.G., S.C. Hess, R.E. Dodge and A.H. Knap. 1989. Effects of untreated and chemically
dispersed oil on tropical marine communities: a long-term field experiment. Proceedings ofthe
1989 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., p 447-458.
Beanlands, G.E., and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental impact
assessment in Canada. Institute for Resources and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University
and Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office. Ottawa, Canada.
Belore, R. and S. Ross. 1999. Testing and development of a single-nozzle spray system for vesselbased dispersant delivery. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Arctic and Marine OHspill
Program Technical Seminar, June 2-4~ 1999, Edmonton, Alberta, p 197-208.
Belore, R. and S. Ross. 2000. Laboratory study to compare the effectiveness of chemical dispersants
when applied dilute versus neat. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Arctic and Marine Oilspill
Program Technical Seminar, June 14-16,2000, Vancouver, B.C.
Belore, R. and S. Ross. in progress. Laboratory study to compare the effectiveness of chemical
dispersants when applied dilute versus neat: Phase II. Study for Exxon Research and
Engineering Company.
-194-
009132
Belore, R., J. McHale and T. Chapple. 1998. Oil deposition modeling for surface oil well blowouts.
Twenty-First Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar. p. 431-437.
Blondina, G., M. Singer, I. Lee, M. Ouano, M. Hodgins, R. Tjeerdema and M. Sowby. 1999.
Influence of salinity on petroleum accommodation by dispersants. Spill Science and
Technology Bulletin 5(2): p. 127-134.
Blondina, G., M. Sowby, M. Ouano, M. Singer, and R. Tjeerdema. 1997. Comparative efficacy of
two Corexit dispersants as measured using California's modified Swirling Flask Test.
Proceedings of the Twentieth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June lIB, 1997, Vancouver, B.C., p. 561-574.
Bobra, M. 1990. A study ofthe formation of water-in-oil emulsions. Proceedings of the Thirteenth
Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June 6-8, Edmonton, Alberta.
Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. p. 87-117.
Bobra, M. 1991. Water-in-oil emulsification: A physicochemical study. Proceedings of the 1991 Oi I
Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. pp 483-488.
Bobra, M.A. 1989. A catalogue of oil properties. Environmental Emergencies Technology Division,
Environment Canada, Ottawa. EE-114.
Bocard C., G. Castaing, J. Ducreux, C. Gatellier, J. Croquette and F. Merlin. 1987. PROTECMAR:
The French experience from a seven-year dispersant offshore trials programme. Proceedings of
the 1987 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. p. 225-229.
Bocard, C. and G. Castaing. 1986. Dispersant effectiveness evaluation-in a dynamic flow through
system: the IFP Dilution Test. in Proceedings of the International Seminar on Chemical and
Natural Dispersion of Oil on Sea, November 10-12, 1986, Heimdal, Norway, 1986.
Bocard, C., C. Castaing and C. Gatellier. 1984. Chemical oil dispersion trials at sea and in laboratory
tests: The key role of dilution processes, in T.E. Allen (ed) Oil Spill Chemical Dispersants:
Research Experience and Recommendations, ASTM, Philadelphia. ASTM, STP 840. p. 125142.
Brandvik, PJ., P.S. Daling, A. Lewis and T. Lunel. 1995. Measurements of dispersed oil
concentrations by in-situ UV fluorescence during the Norwegian experimental oil spill with
Sture blend. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical
Seminar, June 14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, p. 519-535.
Brandvik, PJ., 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 and simulation of an
underwater pipeline leakage a summary paper. Proceedings ofthe Nineteenth Arctic and Marine
Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June 12-14, 1996, Calgary, Alberta, p. 1395-1416.
-195-
009133
Brewer, P.G., F.M. Orr, G. Friederich, K.A. Kvenvolden, D.L. Orange, J. McFarlane and W.
Kirkwood. 1997. Deep-ocean field test of methane hydrate formation from a remotely operated
vehicle. Geology v.25; no.5; pA07-41O.
Byford, D.C., PJ. Green and A. Lewis. 1983. Factors influencing the performance and selection of
low-temperature dispersants. Proceedings of the Sixth Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program
Technical Seminar, June 14-16, 1983, Edmonton, Alberta.
CCP Working Group. 1995. Chemical Countermeasure Product Workshop, 1995. The use of
chemical countermeasures product data for oil spill response planning and response. Volume 2,
Leesburg, VA. Available from Hazardous Material Response and Assessment Division NOAA,
Seattle, WA, 293 pp.
Chau, A. and D. Mackay. 1988. A study of oil dispersion: The role of mixing and weathering.
Environment Canada Report EE-l 04, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Chen, C.T 1999. Design considerations for a fire-monitor based dispersant application system.
Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar,
June 2-4, 1999, Edmonton, Alberta.
Cormack, D., and J.A. Nichols. 1977. The concentrations of oil in sea water resulting from natural
and chemically-induced dispersion of oil slicks. Proceedings of the 1977 Oil Spill Conference.
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., p.381 to 385.
Daling, P. S. and P.J. Brandvik. 1991. Characterization and prediction ofthe weathering properties of
oils at sea - a manual for the oils investigated in the DIWO project. DIWO Report no. 16.
Delvigne, G.A.L. 1985. Experiments on natural and chemical dispersion of oil in laboratory and
field circumstances. Proceedings of the 1985 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Delvigne, G.A.L. 1987. Droplet size distribution of naturally dispersed oil. In Kuiper, J. and W J.
Van den Brink (eds). Fate and effects of oil in marine ecosystems. Martinus Nighoff
Publications, Dordrecht, Netherlands, p. 29-40.
Desmarquest, J., J. Croquette, F. Merlin, C.Bocard, C. Castaing, and C. Gatelier. 1985.Recent
advances in dispersant effectiveness evaluation: Experimental and field aspects. Proceedings of
the 1985 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. p. 445-452.
Dickins, D.A. and LA. Buist. 1981. Oil and gas under sea ice study. Dome Petroleum Ltd.
Environmental Impact Considerations. Proceedings of the 1987 Oil Spill Conference, Baltimore,
Maryland, April 1987, p. 211 - 216.
Exxon Production Research Company. 1992. Oil spill response field manual. p. 59-70. Houston, TX.
-196-
009134
Exxon Research and Engineering Company. 1994. Exxon dispersant guidelines. Exxon Research
and Engineering, Florham Park, NJ, 109 pp.
FanneJop. T.K. an.d K. Sjoen. 1980. Hydrodynamics of underwarter blowouts. AIAA 18th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Pasadena, California. 45 pp.
Fay, J.A. 1971. Physical processes in the spread of oil on a water surface. Proceedings of the
Conference on the Prevention and Control of Oil Spills, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D.C., p. 463467.
Fingas, M.F. 1985. The effectiveness of oil spill dispersants. Spill Technology News)etter, 10(4-6):
47-64.
Fingas, M.F. 1988. Dispersant effectiveness at sea: A hypothesis to explain current problems with
effectiveness. Proceedings of the Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical
Seminar, June 7-9, 1988, Vancouver, BC, p. 455-479.
Fingas, M.F., B. Fieldhouse, L. Gamble and J.V. Mullin. 1995. Studies of water-in-oil emulsions:
Stability classes and measurement. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill
Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Ottawa, Ontario, p. 21-42.
Fingas, M.F., B. Fieldhouse, and J.V. Mullin. 1996. Studies of water-in-oil emulsions: The role of
asphaltenes and resins. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
(A MOP) Technical Seminar, Ottawa, Ontario, p. 73-88.
Fingas, M.F., B. Fieldhouse and J.V. Mullin. 1997. Studies of water-in-oil emulsions: Stability
studies. Proceedings of the Twentieth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar,
Vancouver, BC. Environment Canada. Ottawa. p. 21-42.
Fingas, M.F., D.A. Kyle and EJ. Tennyson. 1992. Physical and chemical studies on oil spill
dispersants: Effectiveness variation with energy. Proceedings ofthe Fifteenth Arctic and Marine
Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June 10-12, 1992, Edmonton, Alberta, p. 135-142.
Fingas, M.F., D.A. Kyle and EJ. Tennyson. 1993. Physical and chemical studies on dispersants: The
effect of dispersant amount and energy. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill
Program Technical Seminar, June 7-9, 1993, Calgary, Alberta, p. 861-876.
Fingas, M.F., D.A. Kyle and EJ. Tennyson. 1995a. Dispersant effectiveness: Studies into the causes
of effectiveness variations. In Lane, P. (ed). ASTM STP 1252.
Fingas, M.F., D.A. Kyle, N. Laroche, B. Fieldhouse, G. Sergy and G. Stood ley. 1995b. The
effectiveness testing of oil spill treating agents in the use of chemicals in oil spill response. In
Lane, P. (ed). ASTM STP 1252.
-197-
009135
Fingas, M.F., D.A. Kyle, Z. Wang, F. Ackerman and J. Mullin. 1994. Testing of oil spill dispersant
effectiveness in the laboratory. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill
Program Technical Seminar, June 8-10, 1994, Vancouver, BC, p. 905-942.
Finnigan, T.D. 1996. Synopsis of an oil spill modeling workshop. Proceedings of the Nineteenth
Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June 12_14,1996, Calgary, Alberta, p.
657-670.
Freeman, R.L., S.M. Holland and R.B. Ditton. 1985. Measuring the impact of the Ixtoc I oil spill on
visitation at three Texas public parks. CZM Journal 13:177-200.
GESAMP, IMOIFAOIUNESCOIWMOIWHOIAENUNIUNEP Joint Group of Experts on the
scientific aspects of Marine Pollution.1993. Impact of oil and related chemicals on the marine
environment. Chapter 4. Using dispersants and other control agents in oil spill response. Rep.
Stud. GESAMP (SO), 180 pp.
Gill, S.D. 1981. The Suffield field trial of aerially applied oil spill dispersants. Report prepared for
the PACE (Petroleum Association for Conservation of the Canadian Environment) and
Canadian Environmental Protection Service. PACE report no. 81-6. Toronto, Canada.
Hokstad, J.N., B. Knudsen and P.S. Daling. 1996. Oil-surfactant interaction and mechanism studiesPart 1: Leaching of surfactants from oil to water. Chemical composition of dispersed oil. IKU
SINTEF Group report to Esso Norge a.s., ESCOST report no. 21, draft version, IKU no.
22.2043.00/21/95, Trondheim, Norway [only abstract and conclusions of report have been seen
and read]
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 1995. IMOfUNEP guidelines on oil spill dispersant
application including environmental considerations. 1995 edition, IMO Publication No. IMO
575E.
ITOPF. 1987. Response to marine oil spills. The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation
Ltd. 1987. 114pp.
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 dispersant use on coral: A review and multidisciplinary experimental approach.
Oil and Petrochemical Pollution, 1: 157-169.
Knudsen, 0.0., PJ. Brandvik and A. Lewis. 1994. Treating oil spills with W/Oemulsion inhibitorsa laboratory study of surfactant leaching from the oil to the water phase. Proceedings of the
Seventeenth Arctic and Marine OilspiIJ Program Technical Seminar, June 8-10, 1994,
Vancouver, BC, p. 1023-1034.
Law, RJ. and J. Hellou. 1999. Contamination offish and shellfish following oil spill incidents.
Environ. Geosci. 6:90-98.
-198-
009136
Law, RJ., C.A Kelly and J. Brown. 1998.The effects ofachemically-dispersed oil spill on fish and
shellfish: experience from the Sea Empress Spill in Wales in 1996. in Trudel, B.K.(ed).
Dispersant use in Alaska: A Technical Update. Proceedings of a dispersant symposium.
Anchorage AK, March 1998, p. 189-203.
LeGore, S., D.s. Marszalek, L.J. Danek, M.S. Thompson, J.E. Hoffman, and J.E. Cuddeback. 1989.
Effects of chemically dispersed oil on Arabian Gulf corals: a field experiment. Proceedings of
the 1989 International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. p.
375-380.
Lewis A, P. Daling" T. Strom~Kristiansen, 1. Singsaas, R. Fiocco and A Nordvik. 1994. Chemical

dispersion of oil an water-in-oil emulsions- a comparison of bench scale test methods and
dispersant treatment in meso-scale flume. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Arctic and Marine
OilspiU Program Technical Seminar, June 8-10, 1994, Vancouver, BC, p. 979-1011.
Lewis, A., Daling, P.S., Str0m-Kristiansen, T., Brandvik, PJ., 1995a, The behaviour of Sture Blend
crude oil spilled at sea and treated with dispersant, Proc. Eighteenth AMOP Technical Seminar,
June 14:-16, 1995, Edmonton, AL, p. 453-469.
Lewis A., P. Daling, T. Strom-Kristiansen, A. Nordvik, and R. Fiocco. 1995b. Weathering and
chemical dispersion of oil at sea. Proceedings of the 1995 International Oil Spill Conference,
p.157-164. 1995.
Lichtenthaler, R.G. and P.S. Daling. 1985. Aerial application of dispersants - comparison of slick
behavior of chemically treated versus non-treated slicks. Proceedings of the 1985 Oil Spill
Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. p. 471-478.
Lindblom, G.P. 1979. Logistic planning for oil spill chemical use. Proceedings ofthe 1979 Oil Spill
Lindblom, G.P. 1981. Aerial application of dispersants at the Ixtoc 1 Spill. Proceedings of the 1981
Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. p. 259-262.
Lunel, T. 1993. Dispersion: Oil droplet size measurements at sea. Proceedings ofthe Sixteenth
Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June 7-9, 1993, Calgary, Alberta, p.
1023-1056.
Lunel, T. 1994a. Dispersion of a large experimental slick by aerial application of dispersant.
Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June 810, 1994, Vancouver, BC. p. 951-979.
Lunel, T. 1994b. Field trials to determine quantitative estimates of dispersant efficiency at sea.
-199-
009137
Lunel, T. 1995. Dispersant effectiveness at sea. Proceedings of the 1995 Oil Spill Conference,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. p. 147-155.
Lunel, T. and A. Lewis. 1993a. Oil concentrations below a demulsifier treated slick. Proceedings of
the Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June 7-9, 1993, Calgary,
Alberta, p. 955-972.
Lunel, T. and A. Lewis. 1993b. Effectiveness of demulsifiers in sea trials. Formation and Breaking
of Water-in-Oil Emulsions: Workshop Proceedings, Marine Spill Response Corporation
Technical Report Series 93-018.
Lunel, T., J. Rusin, N. Bailey, C. Halliwell and L. Davies. 1997. The net environmental benefit ofa
successful dispersant operation at the Sea Empress incident. Proceedings of the 1997
International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., p. 185194.
Lunel, T., L. Davies and P.J. Brandvik. 1995. Field trials to determine dispersant effectiveness at
sea. Proceedings ofthe Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June
14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, p. 603-627.
Lunel, T., L. Davies, A.C.T. Chen and R.A. Major. 1995. Field test of dispersant application by fire
monitor. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar,
June 14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, p. 559-574.
Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, O.D. Bossart and D.M. Hudson.1995. Physiologic and clinicopathologic
effects of crude oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxico\. 28:417-422.
Mackay, D, D. Kristmanson, J. Picot, and J. Smedley. 1980b. Theoretical assessment and design
study ofthe aerial application of oil spill dispersants. Report prepared for the PACE (Petroleum
Association for Conservation of the Canadian Environment). Toronto, Canada.
Mackay, D. 1984. The fate and behavior of oil in cold climates. Department of Chemical
Engineering and Applied Chemistry, Report to Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Mackay, D. and A. Chau. 1986. The effectiveness of chemical dispersants: A discussion of
laboratory and field test results, in Proceedings Of The International Seminar on Chemical and
Natural Dispersion of Oil on Sea, November 10-12, 1986, Heimdal, Norway, 1986.
Mackay, D. and K. Houssain. 1982. Oil-water interfacial tensions in chemical dispersant systems.
Report to Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Mackay, D. and W. Zagorski. 1982. Water in oil emulsions: a stability hypothesis. Proceedings of
the 5th Annual Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar. Environment Canada,
Ottawa.
-200-
009138
Mackay, D. and W. Zagorski. 1982a. Studies ofwater~in~oil emulsions. Environment Canada EPS
Report EE-34, Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Mackay, D., LA. Buist, R. Mascarenhas and S. Paterson. 1980a. Oil spill processes and models.
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Environmental
Protection Service Publication No. EE-8.
Mackay, D., K. Hossaio and J. Aslin. 1981. Effectiveness of aerially applied dispersants. Report of
the Dept. Chern. Eng. and Appl. Chern., U. of Toronto.
Major, R. and A. Chen 1995. Dispersant application by fire monitor, in ASTM STP 1252. The Use
of Chemicals in Oil Spill Response, edited by P. Lane. American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
Major, R., A. Chen and P. Nicholson. 1994. Wave basin tests of boat dispersant application systems.
Major, R.A., N.R. Gray and T.F. Marucci. 1993. Dispersant application by fire monitor. Proceedings
of the 1993 International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
D.C., p. 796.
Martec Limited. 1984. Report on the environmental program associated with the blowout at Shell
et.a!. Uniacke G-72. Report for Shell Canada Resources Limited.
Martinelli, F.N. and B.W. Lynch. 1980. Factors affecting the efficiency of dispersants. Warren
Spring Laboratory, Hertfordshire, UK., Report LR 363 (OP).
Martinelli, F.N. and D. Cormack. 1979. Investigation of the effects of oil viscosity and water- in-oil
emulsion formation on dispersant efficiency. Warren Spring Laboratory, Hertfordshire, UK.,
Report LR 313 (OP).
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. Proceedings ofthe 1981 Oil Spill
McDonagh, M. and K. Colcomb-Heiliger. 1992. Aerial spraying of demulsifiers to enhance the
natural dispersion of oil slicks. Proceedings ofthe Fifteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
Technical Seminar, June 10-12, 1992, Edmonton, Alberta, p. 107-122.
Mignucci-Giannoni, A.A.1999. Assessment and rehabilitation of wildlife affected by an oil spill in
Puerto Rico. Environmental Pollution, 104:323-333.
-201-
009139
Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.1998. Gulf ofMexico OCS Oil and Gas
Lease Sales 171, 174, 177, and 180 - Western Planning Area: Final Environment Impact
Statement. OCS EISIEA MMS 98-0008. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Minerals Management Service. 2000. Gulf-Wide Information System - G-WIS. Minerals
Management Service GulfofMexico Region. MMS 2000-027. September 1999.
MMS and Environment Canada.1996. Properties of crude oils of the Outer Continental ShelfLouisiana Gulf Coast, Report by Emergencies Science Division, Environment Canada, for the
Minerals Management Service.
MMS and Environment Canada.1998. Properties of additional crude oils of the OCS - Louisiana
Gulf Coast (Garden Banks Blocks 387 and 426, Green Canyon Block 184, Mississippi Canyon
Block 72 and 807 (1998), and Viosca Knoll Blocks 826 and 990). Unpublished Report by
Emergencies Science Division, Environment Canada, for the Minerals Management Service.
MMS and Environment Canada. 1999. Properties of additional crude oils of the oes - Louisiana
Gulf Coast (Green Canyon 205, Mississippi Canyon 807 (1999), and Viosca Knoll Block 826)
Unpublished Report by Emergencies Science Division, Environment Canada, for the Minerals
Management Service.
Nadeau, J.S., and D. Mackay. 1978 Evaporation rates of complex hydrocarbon mixtures under
environmental conditions. Spill Technology Newsletter, vol 3(2) Environmental Protection
Service. Environment Canada. Ottawa.
National Research Council. 1985. Oil in the sea: inputs, fates, and effects. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 601 pp.
Nes, H. and S. Norland. 1983. Effectiveness and toxicity experiments with oil dispersants, PFOProject No 1405. Also in Proceedings of the Sixth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
Technical Seminar, June 14-16, 1983, p. 132-139.
Nichols, J.A. and H.D. Parker. 1985. Dispersants: Comparison oflaboratory tests and field trials
with practical experience at spills. Proceedings of the 1985 Oil Spill Conference, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. p. 421-428.
Nordvik, A., T. Hudon and H. Osborn. 1993. Interlaboratory calibration testing of dispersant
effectiveness. Marine Spill Response Corporation Technical Report Series 93-003, Washington,
D.C.
Okubo, A. 1971. Oceanic Diffusion Diagrams. Deep Sea Research, Vol. 18, p. 789-802. eds. Perry,
R.H. and D. W. Green. 1984. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. 6th Edition, McGraw Hill
Book Co.
Pond, R.G., D.V Aurand, and J.A. Kraly. 2000. Ecological risk assessment principles applied to oil
spill response planning in the Galveston Bay area. Texas General Land Office, Austin TX.
-202-
009140
Price, J .M., C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear. 1997. Oil-Spill Risk Analysis: Gulf of Mexico, Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Central and Western Lease Sales, 1998-2002, and Gulf-Wide OCS
program, ]998 -2036. OCS Report MMS 97-0040. U.S. Department of the Interior, 410 pp.
Price, J .M., C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear. 1998. Oil-Spill Risk Analysis: Destin Dome Development
and Production Plan. OCS Report MMS 98-0037 (July 1998). U.S. Department ofthe Interior,
19 pp.
Price, J .M., C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear. 2000. Oil-Spi II Risk Analysis: Use offloating production,
storage and offioading in the Gulf of Mexico. OCS Report MMS 2000-059 (July 2000). U.S.
Department of the Interior, 9 pp.
Region IV Regional Response Team 1996. Use of dispersants in Region IV. Region N Regional
Response Team Response and Technology Committee, Miami, FL.
Ross, S. L. 1998. The case for using vessel-based systems to apply oil spill dispersants. Proceedings
of the Twenty-First Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June 10-12, 1998,
Edmonton, Alberta, p. 201-220.
Ross, S.L. C.W. Ross, F. Lepine and K.E. Langtry. 1979. Ixtoc I oil blowout. Spill Technology
Newsletter, July-August., p. 245-256. Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada,
Ottawa.
Ross. S. L. 2000. Dispersant use in ice infested waters. Proceedings ofthe International Oil and Ice
Workshop, Anchorage, AK, April 5-6, 2000. Alaska Clean Seas, Anchorage, AK.
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. 1985. Effectiveness of the repeat application of chemical
dispersants on oil. Environmental Studies Research Funds, Publication No. 006, Ottawa,
Canada, January 1985.
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. 1986. An experimental study of oil spill treating agents that
inhibit emulsification and promote dispersion. Environment Canada Report EE-87,
Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. 1997a. Fate and behavior of deepwater subsea oil well
blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico. Report to U.S. Minerals Management Service, Washington,
D.C.
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. 1997b. A review of dispersant use on spills of North Slope
crude oil in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. Report to Prince William Sound
Regional Citizens' Advisory Council, Anchorage, Alaska. Report No. C\634.96.1 Dispersants.
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. 1999. Laboratory study to compare the effectiveness of
chemical dispersants when applied dilute versus neat. Draft report to U.s. Minerals
Management Service, January 1999.
-203-
009141
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. and D. Mackay Environmental Research Limited. 1988.
Laboratory studies of the behaviour and fate of waxy crude oil spills. Environmental Studies
Research Funds, Report 084, Ottawa.
S.L. Ross. 1998. Laboratory testing to determine operational parameters for in situ burning of six
U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Crude Oils. Report by SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd. to
the Minerals Management Service, March 1998.
S.L. Ross. 1999b. Laboratory testing to determine operational parameters for in situ burning of six
additional U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Crude Oils. Report by SL Ross Environmental Research
Ltd. to the Minerals Management Service, November 1999.
Scientific and Environmental Associates, Inc. (eds.). 1995. The use of chemical countermeasures
product data for oil spill planning and response. Vols. 1 and 2. 4-6 April 1995, Leesburg, VA.
83 p.
Shuba, P. and AJ. Heikamp. 1989. Toxicity tests on biological species indigenous to the Gulf of
Mexico. Unpublished Report to LOOP Inc. New Orleans, LA. Parts 1 and 2.
Singer, M.M., D.L. Smalheer, R.S. Tjeerdema and M. Martin. 1991. Effects of spiked exposure to an
oil dispersant on the early life stages offour marine species. Environ. Toxico!. Chern. 10: 13671374.
Singer, M.M., S. George, S. Jacobson, L.L. Weetman, G. Blondeau, R.S. Tjeerdema, D. Aurand and
M.L. Sowby. 1996. Evaluation of the aquatic effects of crude oil dispersants and their mixtures.
Proceedings ofthe Nineteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, p. 495514.
Smith, J .C. (ed). 1968. "Torrey Canyon" pollution and marine life. Marine Biological Association of
the United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Sorenson, P.E. 1990. Socioeconomic effects of OCS oil and gas development. In Synthesis of
available biologivcal, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information
for the South Florida area. Jupiter FL: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. p. 609-629.
Serstmm, S.E. 1986. The experimental oil spill at Haltenbanken 1985. Proceedings of the
international seminar on chemical and natural dispersion of oil on sea, November 10-12, 1986,
Heimdal, Norway.
Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies (SMART) 2000. Developed by U.S. Coast
Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.s. Environmental Protection
Agency, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA, March 2000.
-204-
009142
Stiver, W. and D. Mackay. 1983. Evaporation rate of spills of hydrocarbons and petroleum mixtures.
Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada, EE-8.
Strom-Kristiansen, T., P. Daling, P. Brandvik, and H. Jensen. 1996. Mechanical recovery of
chemically treated oil slicks. Proceedings ofthe Nineteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
Technical Seminar, June 12-14, 1996, Calgary, Alberta, p. 407-421.
TCOSPRI999. Texas Coastal Oil Spill Planning and Response Atlas-A natural resource database
on CD-ROM. Prepared by Texas General Land Office, Marine Safety Division U.S. Coast
Guard, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. October, 1999.
Topham, D.R 1975. Hydrodynamics of an oil well blowout. Institute of Ocean Sciences, Patricia
Bay, Canada.
Topham, D.R 1980. The modeling of deep oil well blowout plumes, including the effects of hydrate
formation. Proceedings of the 1980 Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar. p.
87-111.
Topham, D.R. and P.R. Bishnoi. ] 980. Deepwater blowouts. Environmental Emergency Branch,
Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Spill Technology Newsletter, Vol. 5, Economic and
Technical Review Report EPS 3-EC-81-8. p. 88-94.
Topham, D.R, P.R Bishnoi and B.B. Maini. 1979. Laboratory study of behavior of oil and gas
particles in salt water relating to deep oil well blowouts. Proceedings of the 1979 Arctic and
Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar. p. 20-36.
Trudel, B.K. 1984. A mathematical model for predicting the ecological impact of treated and
untreated oil spills. In Allen, T.E. (ed.) Oil Spill Chemical Dispersants: Research, Experience
and Recommendation. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, ASTM
Special Technical Publication 840, p. 390-314.
Trudel, B.K. 1985. Fish. In Duval, W.S.,(ed). A review of the biological fate and effects of oil in
cold marine environments. Environmental Protection Service Report EE-74. Environment
Canada, Ottawa, Canada. p. 77-98.
Trudel, B.K., and S.L. Ross. 1987. Method for making dispersant-use decisions based on environmental
impact considerations. Proceedings of the 1987 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C., p. 211-216.
Trudel, B.K., RC. Belore, B.J. Jessiman, and S.L. Ross. 1989. A microcomputer-based spill impact
assessment system for untreated and chemically dispersed oil spills in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
Proceedings ofthe 1989 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.,
p.533-537.
-205-
009143
Trudel, B.K., S.L Ross, B.J. Jessiman, and J.J. Swiss. 1988. Guide to dispersant-use decision making
for oil spills in the Canadian Southern Beaufort Sea. Environmental Studies Research Funds,
Publication No. 092, 227 pp .
Trudel, B.K., S.L. Ross, and L.C. Oddy. 1986. Workbook on dispersant-use decision making: The
environmental impact aspects. Canadian Department of Environment, April, 1986, 59 pp.
Turner, B.D. 1970. Workbook of atmospheric dispersion estimates. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Air Programs.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 1991. Gulf of Mexico Sales 139 and
141: Central and Western Planning Areas - final environmental impact statement. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Golf of Mexico OCS Region, New
Orleans, LA. OCS EISIEA MMS 91-0054. (See Table S-5)
U.S. Naval Weather Service Command. 1975. Summary of synoptic meteorological observations.
North American coastal marine areas - Volume 1: Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. U.S. Naval
Weather Service Command.
Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. Van Vleet, and G. Bossart. 1986. Effects of oil on marine turtles.
Final Report to the Minerals Management Service prepared by the Florida Institute of
Oceanography, OCS Study MMS 86-0070.
Walker M. and T. Lunel. 1995. Response to oil spills at sea using both demulsifiers and dispersants.
Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, June 1416, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, p.537-558.
Walker, A.H., D.L. Ducey, J .R. Gould and A.B. Nordvik. 1993. Formation and breaking of water-inoil emulsions: Workshop proceedings. Marine Spill Response Corporation Technical Report
Series 93-018, 300 pp.
Walker, M.L, T. Lunei, Pol. Brandvik and A. Lewis. 1995. Emulsification processes at sea - Forties
crude oil. Proceedings ofthe Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar,
June 14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, p. 471-491.
Wyers, S.C., H.R. Frith, R.E. Dodge, S.R. Smith, A.H. Knap. T.D. Sleeter. 1986. Behavioural
effects of chemically dispersed oj] and subsequent recovery on Diploria strigosa (Dana). Marine
Ecology 7: 23-42.
-206-
009144
Technology Assessment of the Use of Dispersants on SpilJs from

Drilling and Production Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Outer
Continental Shelf
K. Trudel, S.L. Ross, and
R. Belore
S.L. Ross Environmental
Research Ltd.,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
kentrudel@slross.com
S. Buffington
Engineering and Research,
Minerals Management
Service,
Herndon, VA, U.S.A.
G. Rainey
Environmental
Assessment,
Minerals Management
Service,
New Orleans, LA, U.S.A.
Abstract
This paper summarizes an assessment of operational and environmental issues
associated with dispersant use on oil spills from U.S. Minerals Management Serviceregulated offshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. Among other things, the study
examined: 1) dispersibility of oils; 2) capabilities and limitations of spray platforms;
and 3) net environmental benefit of dispersing spills. Spill scenarios involving typical
spill types, oil types, sizes, locations and environmental were analyzed.
In general, Gulf oils are light and apparently dispersible when they are fresh. The
impact of weathering on dispersibility of GOM oils was assessed by analyzing oil
spill scenarios. In each scenario, the time window (TW) for dispersion was estimated
by oil fate modeling. Of the hundreds of crude oils produced in the Gulf, only 28
have been characterized sufficiently to permit modeling. Of these 28 oils: 14% appear
to be highly emulsifiable (TW = few hours); 29% moderately emulsifiable oils (TW =
one or more days); 32% low emulsifying oils (TW = many days); and 25% nonemulsifying oils (TW = almost indefinite). Based on this small sample, the majority
of oils produced in the Gulf appear to be amenable to chemical dispersion.
The logistical capabilities of dispersant spraying platforms were analyzed using
simple spreadsheet models. Platforms considered included: C-130/ADDS Pack, DC4, DC-3, Agtruck AT-802, typical helicopter, and several types of workboats.
Analyses considered properties of the platforms, spills, oil slicks, and distance from
base to spill.
Net environmental benefit (NEB) of dispersants was determined by analyzing the
impact of spill scenarios. The variables included spill type, location and seasons.
Environmental impact and NEB were estimated using a spill impact assessment
model. An important feature of this project was the use of newly completed, resource
vulnerability databases to assess the vulnerability of target resources to the spills. The
databases included: 1) Texas Coastal Oil Spill Planning and Response Toolkit (Texas
General Land Office); and 2) Gulf-Wide Information System (MMS). The main
finding of this analysis is that dispersant use offered a net environmental benefit in
almost every spill scenario analyzed, provided the spill involved persistent oil that
emulsified slowly allowing a TW of36 to 48 hours.
1.0
Introduction
Over the last decade important progress has been made in the area of chemical
oil spill dispersants. These advances have been due to research (e.g., Belore and Ross
009145
2000, Fingas et al. 2000, Lunel 1994, Singer et a1. 1998) and planning (e.g., Allen
and Dale 1995, RRT IV 1996, SL Ross 1997, SMART 2000), as well as practical
experience during spills, such as the Sea Empress (Wales, 1996)(Lunel et al. 1997).
The spill response community in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Area has integrated
dispersants into the oil spill response arsenal for spills from vessels. However, the
northern GOM is at significant risk from spills from oil production activities, as well
as from vessels. The objective of this project was to assess technical aspects of using
dispersants to treat spills associated with offshore oil production in the Gulf. In
specific terms, the project addressed the operational and environmental issues
surrounding dispersant use on spills from U.S. MMS - regulated Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) facilities, including production platforms and pipelines. Four major
issues were emphasized:
1) Dispersibility of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) oils;
2) Influence of spill conditions on the Time Window (TW) for GOM oils and
spills;
3) Logistic limitations of existing platforms in dealing with production-related
spills in the GOM; and
4) Net Environmental Benefit (NEB) of using dispersants in responding to
production-related spills in the GOM.
Detailed analyses of the above factors and their interactions were conducted
using a variety of computer models and existing data (e.g., oil properties,
characteristics of dispersant spraying platforms, spill vulnerability databases for
natural resources). A large number of spill scenarios were analyzed to address the
influence ofthe following variables: spill type; spill volume; oil type; spill location;
physical environmental conditions.
This paper summarizes the approach and main findings of the project. For
complete infortnation concerning methods and results refer to S.L. Ross (2000).
2.0
Dispersibility of GOMR Oils

This task estimated the general amenability to chemical dispersion of oils
produced in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region (GOMR). There are thousands of wells
in operation in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, producing an equal number of oils. A
publicly available MMS database provides average API oil gravities for all plays in
the GOMR. These data show that the vast majority of oils from these plays are
relatively light (average API gravity is about 33 = 0.86 specific gravity). This
suggests that most oils might be amenable to chemical dispersion, but more
information is required to evaluate the potential behaviour of each. An important
factor is the tendency of each to form water-in-oil-emulsion. This section addresses
the question of the potential tendency of these oils to form emulsion.
2.1
Approach
Detailed information concerning oil properties is available for 28 of the hundreds

of GOMR oils. These 28 oils have been thoroughly analyzed and modeled in previous
projects funded by MMS. (MMS and Environment Canada. 1996, 1998. 1999) In the
present work, computer simulations of the fate and behaviour of spills ofthese oils
were conducted to assess the rates of weathering, emulsion-formation and natural
dissipation. Simulations were conducted using the oil spill model SLROSM described
009146
in Belore, (In Press). Hypothetical batch spills of 1000 barrels and 10,000 barrels
were used for this purpose.
2.2
Results
Results are summarized in Table 1. If these 28 oils are representative of the

GOM oils, the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the dispersibility of
these GOMR spills.
1) Fourteen percent ofGOMR-OeS oils (four of the 28 oils in Table 1) are
highly emulsifiable and will have a very narrow Time Window for treatment with
chemical dispersants. These are called Hi-E oils (= highly emulsifiable) in this study.
They are defined as oils that will start to emulsify after 10% or less of the spill has
evaporated.
2) The next category is for Av-E oils (=average tendency to emulsify), which
make up 29% of total. For these, there is a relatively narrow TW for effective
dispersant response, but still more time available than the Hi-E oils.
3) The next category is Lo-E oils (= little tendency to emulsify), which make up
32% oftota!. The TW for effective dispersant use for Lo-E oils is long, allowing
several days to treat the spill.
4) Finally, No-E oils do not emulsify regardless of the extent of evaporation.
They make up 25% of total. These oils are ideal candidates for chemical dispersion
because they have an unlimited TW. This class of oils also includes the diesel fuels
used to power offshore rigs and the vessels that service them.
In summary, based on this small sample ofGOM oils, most appear to be good
candidates for chemical dispersion. Only the Hi-E oils (14% of the total) present
problems due to their tendency to emulsify rapidly, thus quickly closing the window
of opportunity for effective dispersant use. The remaining 86% offer a reasonable
chance of being good targets for a dispersant response program. Indeed, both Lo-E
oils and No-E oils, representing 57% of all spill possibilities, are excellent candidates
for responding with dispersants. There is generally much time available for dispersing
such spills, at least when considering batch spills in the spill size range of 1000 bbl to
10,000 bbl. For other spills the TW for dispersant-use will vary as a function of spill
type (e.g., blowout vs. batch spill), spill size and environmental conditions. To
analyze this variation, a detailed modeling exercise was conducted, as described in
the next section.
3.0
Influence of Spill Conditions on Dispersibility
The influence of spill conditions on the potential operational dispersibility of oils

was considered by analyzing spills of different types (batch vs. continuous spills) and
sizes. The purpose was to estimate the influence of spill conditions on the persistence
of spilled oils (and hence their potential for doing environmental damage); and the
TW for dispersant response.
3.1
Spill Scenario Analysis
This task involved conducting computer simulations of oil fate and behaviour
using a range of oil and spill types. Oil types from each category in Table I were
selected for modeling (the model oils are highlighted in Table 1) and scenarios were
developed reflecting the range of possible spills associated with oes installations in
009147
the GOM. These scenarios are listed in Table 2. Computer simulations were
conducted using the SLROSM, as described in section 2, above.
3.2
Results of Oil Fate Modeling
The results of the oil fate modeling are summarized in Table 3 below. These
results are described briefly below.
3.2.1
Batch Spills
Batch spills involving diesel oil and No-E oils (scenarios I a, 1band 2a) appear to
be good candidates for chemical dispersion, but the potential environmental benefits
of using dispersants will vary with the circumstances of the spill. On one hand, these
spills have long TW for the use of dispersants because of the low tendency of these
oils to form emulsions. On the other hand, these spills tend to disperse naturally
within a few hours or days, and may pose only a limited environmental threat,
depending on the circumstances of the spill.
The batch spill involving Av-E oil (scenario 2b) is a good candidate for
dispersant use because: 1) the oil is relatively persistent, lasting more than 30 day,
and thus poses a threat to even distant shorelines; and 2) it emulsifies only slowly,
taking nearly 96 hours to fully emulsifY, allowing considerable time to implement a
spraying operation.
The spills in scenarios 2c and 3, involving Hi-E oils, are also persistent. These
spills emulsifY quickly, reaching apparently undispersible viscosities within only 10
to 15 hours, thus allowing only a very briefTW for dispersant response.
3.2.2
Blowouts
Blowout spills differ from batch spills in terms of their behaviour and the logistic
challenges that they present to the dispersant responder. These differences can be
illustrated by comparing batch and blowout spills of similar volumes and oil types.
A batch spill, of Av-E oil (scenario 2b) is predicted to require 55 to 96 hours to
fully emulsifY. This offers a fairly lengthy TW for dispersant response. An above-sea
blowout involving a similar oil type and spill volume (4b) produces a much thinner
slick, which takes a much shorter time to emulsifY (10 to 15 hours). However, the
blowout spills is still dispersible despite the shorter TW, because the blowout
discharges oil slowly over a prolonged period, so that only a small amount of oil must
be treated at any given time. In addition, the TW is long enough that the much of the
oil that is discharged overnight (when dispersant operations must be suspended), will
be amenable to dispersion on the following day. On the other hand, the abovesurface, high-flow blowout involving Hi-E oil (scenario Sa) emulsifies very quickly
and provides a TW of only five hours. Much of the oil that is released overnight
during this blowout will not be amenable to effective dispersant treatment the next
day.
In subsea blowout scenarios 6 and 7, the a, band c designations refer to the
different release depths of35, 50 and 150 m, respectively. Because these slicks are
very thin (0.05 to O.l5mm), they emulsifY very quickly, with TWs from 4 to 7 hours.
The freshly spi1led oil will be treatable within this time, but, some of the oil released
overnight apparently will not be chemically dispersible the following morning.
009148
4.0
Logistic Limitations of Some Dispersant Platforms
A detailed analysis of the above scenarios was performed in order to assess the
capabilities and limitations of existing platforms in delivering and applying
dispersants. The objective was to estimate the theoretical dispersant delivery
capabilities of each of the existing platforms! under more or less realistic spill
conditions in the GOM with respect to slick sizes and thicknesses, and distances
between the spilJ and the base of operations.
4.1
Approach
The theoretical dispersant delivery capabilities of the different platforms were

estimated using simple spreadsheet models. Dispersant responses were simulated for
each combination of platform and spill scenario. In each case, the volume of
dispersant delivered during the TW and the theoretical volume of dispersant that each
platform might deliver per 12-hour day were estimated. Delivery rates were based on
the volume of dispersant delivered per sortie and the length of time required per
sortie. The length ofa sortie was the sum of the following: 1) twice the travel time; 2)
spraying time (function of payload, pump rate, spray speed, swath width, slick
dimensions, slick thickness and repositioning time); and 3) re-supply time. Results
were reported in terms of the volume of dispersant that could be delivered in the
sorties completed in a 12-hour day.
The available dispersant platforms in the GOMR include: C-130
(Hercules)/ADDS Pack; DC-4-based system; DC-3-based system; Cessna AT-802
(Agtruck); helicopter- based system; and several vessel-based systems. The logistics
characteristics of these platforms used in the modeling are summarized in Table 4,
below.
4.2
Results of Analysis
4.2.1
Effect of Emulsification Tendency of Oils
In the batch spill scenarios, the rate of emulsification exerts a very strong
influence over operational efficiency. In scenarios involving Hi-E oils, the TWs are
very short, only a matter of a few hours. Even under ideal conditions, this allows time
for at most one or two sorties by most platforms. In even the smallest of the spill
scenarios (20,000 bbl scenario) considered here, the largest platform (e.g., C-130)
could reduce the volume of oil present by only a few percent. On the other hand,
spills involving Lo-E oils offer very lengthy TWs. However, these spills dissipate
naturally within hours without chemical dispersion, so dispersants do little to reduce
the persistence of the spill.
The impact of dispersants is most evident in scenarios with A v-E oils that
emulsify, but do so slowly, yielding lengthy TW. The results of the modeling suggest
1 An obvious limiting factor in this connection is the amount of dispersant that is

availble. The quantities available to fight spills in the GOM area vary from time to time, but
at the time of writing there are approximately 123,000 gallons available. A portion of the
222,000 gallons of dispersant located elsewhere I North America could be made available
within 24 hours. In addition to existing stockpiles, suppliers claim to be able to produce
44,000 gallons of dispersant per day on an emergency basis.
009149
that certain platforms may be capable of fully dispersing at least the smaller of these
spi1ls (Figure 1), while others cannot. The effects of differences between platforms in
dealing with spills of Av-E oils are examined in the next section.
4.2 ..2
Dispersant Delivery Capacities of Platforms
The estimated theoretical capacities of all of these platforms to deliver

dispersants to large spills over varying distances are summarized in Table 5. When
the theoretical capacities of all platforms to deliver dispersant over a 12-hour period
and a 30-mile distance were compared to the C-130, their relative performances
would be as follows: DC-4, 0.43 times the C-130, DC-3, 0.26; Agtruck AT-802, 0.23;
helicopter,O.lO; Vessel A, 0.07 and Vessel D, 0.58.
Both helicopter and vessel systems have the advantage of being re-supplied at the
spill site, thus avoiding the necessity of traveling to their base of operations. By resupplying at the spill site, their performance can be improved by factors of2.7
(helicopter) and 4.5 (vessel). The performance of these platforms relative to the
C130, when supplied at site would be 0.25 and 0.29, respectively.
The distance from the spill site to the base ofre-supply influences performance.
Increasing the operating distance from 30 miles to 100 miles reduces performance of
most platforms by 25 to 50 percent. By increasing the operating distance to 300
miles, delivery capacities are reduced by 40 to 60 percent of their capacities at 30
miles. The helicopter system cannot be used for responses at 100 miles, nor the AT802 at 300 miles because of range limitations.
4.2.3
Blowout Spills
For blowout spills, as with batch spills, the effects of dispersant use on oil fate
depend on the properties and behavior of the oil. Blowouts of oils that do not
emulsifY or that emulsifY very slowly will disperse quickly by natural means, and
dispersants may not affect their persistence greatly. Other oils that emulsifY relatively
quickly can be strongly affected by dispersant operations.
Blowouts that emulsifY quickly apparently may not be fully dispersed by even
the most effective operation because dispersant operations must be suspended at
night. A portion ofthe oil that is spilled overnight will emulsifY to undispersible
viscosities before spraying is started again the following morning. This apparent
effect has been referred to as the "overnight effect" in the following.
When surface and subsea blowouts of identical size and oil type are compared,
dispersion of subsea blowouts appears to be much less efficient operationally than
surface blowouts. This is due in part, because apparently oil slicks from subsea
blowouts may be much thinner, initially, than above sea blowouts, and this has two
effects.
1) Slicks from above sea blowouts are often thick enough that most platforms
do not overdose them when operating at maximum application rates. Those
from comparable subsea blowout scenarios are too thin to be treated at
maximum application rates without overdosing. In order to avoid overdosing
subsea blowouts, dispersant application rates must be reduced, thus
increasing the time needed to treat the slick.
2) Thinner slicks appear to emulsifY more quickly, so that the impact of
"overnight effect" are greater in subsea blowouts.
009150
Payload and operating distance control overall operational effectiveness in

blowout spills, as they do in batch spills, but these influences may be less evident
when blowout rates are of the order of5000 BOPD or less. In blowout spills
involving lower discharge rates, the payload of the larger platforms greatly exceeds
the amount of oil present on the sea surface at the spill site. As a result, the logistic
advantage of very large platforms is iess significant.
The large, deepwater blowout in scenarios 8a and 8b are challenging for several
reasons. First, these spills occur furthest from any base of operations. At this long
distance, even spills of modest size are beyond the capabilities of single units of most
aerial systems, except the C-130/ADDS Pack. In theory, the amount of oil discharged
each day, 100,000 barrels, is within the operating capacity of the combined efforts of
all of the large fixed-wing resources in the GOM, supplemented by two of the ADDS
Pack systems from outside the region. Second, these two scenarios involve extremely
large amounts of oil. The daily discharge rates for oil are so large that they would
exhaust the North American stockpiles of dispersant within the first two to six days of
the spill.
5.0
Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use

This task assessed the environmental risks and benefits associated with
dispersant use in production-related spills in the GOM. The objective was to
determine, quantitatively, whether or not dispersants offered a net environmental
benefit in treating spills from platforms and pipelines.
5.1
Methods
The approach was to assess the Net Environmental Benefit (NEB) associated
. with dispersant use in a number of spill scenarios that were representative of GOM
spills. The scenarios used for this purpose included batch and blowout spills launched
from the following locations (see Figure 2).
Nominal Location
Abbreviation
Latitnde
(degrees)
Longitnde
(degrees)
Texas - Nearshore
TX-NS
27.619
96.624
Louisiana
Nearshore
LA-NS
28.725
89.25
Midpoint
MP
28.6]4
93.214
Flower Gardens
FG
27.837
93.761
Deepwater Site
DW
27.083
90.166
Destin Dome
DD
29.980
87.18
009151
In each scenario, the NEB of using dispersants was assessed as follows.

1)
The oil spill fate and trajectory for untreated oil spill, were estimated
using the SLROSM model and appropriate trajectory information
contained in MMS environmental impact assessments (e.g., Price et al.
1997).
2)
All key resources at risk from the spill were identified, based on spill
trajectory and resource distribution data contained in recently developed
natural resource databases for oil spill planning (MMS 2000, TCOSPR
1999). Valued environmental components included a range of living
resources (e.g., wildlife species, habitats), economic resources (e.g.,
commercial fisheries) and human-use resources (e.g., amenity beaches).
3)
Quantitative estimates of the potential damage caused by the untreated
spill were made using the environmental impact assessment model for the
GOM, based on Trudel et al. (1989), and above mentioned local resource
vulnerability databases (MMS 2000, TCOSPR 1999).
4)
Similar estimates of impact were made for the same spill, if chemically
dispersed.
5)
The estimates of impact of untreated and chemically dispersed spills were
compared in order to determine the environmental gains and losses that
might result from using dispersants in the spill.
Details of the methods are described in detail in S.L. Ross (2000), including
information concerning: exposure-effect thresholds for all categories of resources;
methods for quantifYing impacts for each resource category; and recovery rates for
various groups of resources following damage by spills.
Upon consideration ofthe fate and movement of oil and a pre1iminary
assessment of environmental issues, spills from three sites were considered in detail:
Texas Nearshore; Midpoint; and Destin Dome.
5.2
Results of the Analysis
5.2.1
Gross Categorization of Scenarios
From the perspective of environmental risk and potential NEB of dispersant-use,

the scenarios considered in this study can be divided into three categories.
1) Group One. These are scenarios in which spills disperse very quickly, within
hours by natural means. Because the launch points in this study were
somewhat offshore, all spills disperse naturally in offshore waters in all
scenarios. They do not threaten shorelines or nearshore waters and they pose
only very modest environmental risks. In these spill scenarios, chemical
dispersion does little to reduce the persistence ofthe spill or reduce
environmental impact. They therefore offer little in the way of NEB.
2) Group Two. These are scenarios in which the spills emulsify too quickly for
dispersant operations to be mounted. In these scenarios dispersants do little to
reduce the persistence of oil or reduce the impact of the untreated spill. In
these scenarios dispersants offer little potential NEB.
3) Group Three. These are scenarios in which oils are persistent enough for
slicks to reach nearshore areas, but in which TWs are long enough so that the
009152
spills can be fully chemical1y dispersed. In these spills, dispersants can greatly
reduce the risks associated with the untreated slick. As such, they may offer
an NEB depending on the risks posed by the chemically dispersed spill. The
NEB or environmental tradeoffs of dispersant use in these scenarios are
considered, on a scenario-by-scenario basis below.
It is important to note that whiJe actual spills may fal1 into the above categories, at
present, the actual dispersibility and rate of emulsification of many spills cannot be
predicted accurately, in advance. So in many spills there will be uncertainty about the
potential dispersibiIity ofthe oil that has been discharged. When the question of
dispersibility is in doubt, it may be useful to put that consideration aside, in the first
instance, and make the dispersant use/non-use decision based on NEB. The question
of dispersibility can then be addressed by monitoring the actual dispersant
effectiveness during the early stages of the response.
5.2.2
Analysis of Spills of Dispersible Persistent Oils
The main conclusion from this work is that if dispersants are used to treat
dispersible, persistent oils (Group Three Scenarios), there will be a net environmental
benefit in almost every case. The reason for this is that the launch sites of spills from
MMS-regulated facilities are all more than 25 km offshore. When spills from these
sites are fully treated with dispersants near the spill site (as they must be if the
dispersant is to be effective), the spraying will take place well offshore and the
environmental risks from the dispersed oil will be very low or at least lower than the
risks from the untreated spill. This is borne out by the results of the scenarios
addressed in this study.
The detailed analysis of a spill of 3180 m3 of Av-E crude oil from the Mid-Point
launch site in mid summer (Figure 2), suggested that there was a clear NEB of
dispersant use in that case. In this scenario, the untreated slick persisted long enough
to reach the shoreline, where it threatened: 1) to contaminate a section of amenity
beach; 2) to cause localized, short-term disruption to several commercial fisheries;
and 3) to cause a some mortalities to several marine bird populations. The same spill,
when dispersed offshore threatened to do very little damage.
The same spill launched from the Texas Nearshore location (Figure 2), which is
much nearer to shore, was unique because it was the only scenario, in this study,
where there were significant drawbacks from using dispersants. In this scenario, the
untreated spill posed important risks to both economic and biological resources,
including: 1) contamination of a length of amenity shoreline; 2) a contamination of a
length of shoreline on a national wildlife refuge; 3) mortalities to at least three
protected marine bird species; and 4) temporary, localized disruptions to commercial
shrimp fishing in a very important fishing area at the height of the fishing season.
Dispersant use eliminated these risks, but threatened to pose a short-term, localized
disruption to the major local shrimp fishery. On balance, dispersants appeared to offer
a net environmental benefit in this case, but there is some uncertainty surrounding
this result. The dispersed spill posed no biological risk to the shrimp stock, but the
cloud of dispersed oil might result in a temporary and localized closure to the fishery.
The local policies regarding fishery closures and attitudes toward the valuation of
economic and biological resources could have a bearing on the NEB analysis in this
case.
009153
The spill scenario in the northeastern Gulf, at Destin Dome (Figure 2),
demonstrated that the benefits of dispersants vary from place to place in the Gulf. The
coastal zone and offshore environment in the Destin Dome scenario differed greatly
from those in the western Gulf. In this scenario, there was also a clear net
environmental benefit of using dispersants to treat the spill.
The blowout scenario showed that the net environmental benefit of using
dispersants is far greater in blowout spills than in batch spills of the same size. The
damage caused by the untreated batch spill considered above (TX-nearshore)
involved only small, localized area. A protracted blowout, involving the same volume
of oil, could contaminate a much larger area and may cause far greater damage, as a
consequence. On the other hand, when a blowout is treated with dispersants, any
resulting contamination and damage is restricted to the immediate vicinity of the spill
site as in the batch spill. The damage from dispersing the blowout will be no greater
than for the batch spill.
6.0
Conclusions
This study examined the technical issues associated with using chemical
dispersants to clean up oil spills from MMS-regulated installations in the Gulf of
Mexico.
1. Of the hundreds of unique oils produced in the GaM, most appear to be light and
apparently dispersible when they are fresh. Modeling studies of the weathering
characteristics of the 28 well-studied GaM oils suggested that the majority, over 85
percent, appear to have time windows of a few days or longer; long enough to permit
effective dispersant operations.
'
2. The maximum theoretical dispersant delivery capacities of 'a range of spraying
platforms were estimated using simple spreadsheet models. The analysis suggested
that the maximum theoretical delivery capacity of the largest platform, the e1301ADDS Pack was approximately 104 m3 of dispersant sprayed per 12-hour day at
an operating distance of 30 nautical miles. Other platforms performed as follows:
DC-4, 0.43 times the C-130, DC-3, 0.26; Agtruck AT-802, 0.23; helicopter, 0.10;
Vessels, 0.07 to 0.58.
3. The environmental gains derived from dispersant use were greatest in the scenarios
involving spills of manageable size, with persistent, but dispersible oils, and TW
longer than 24 hours. In these scenarios, dispersants appeared to offer a clear NEB
regardless of the launch sites ofthe spills. This is due largely to the following.
1) The oils in these scenarios persisted long enough to reach the shorelines,
where it posed a threat to a number of key resources.
2) The launch sites were far enough offshore that the same spills when dispersed
posed little environmental impact in most cases.
The analysis also suggested that the NEB was greater in a blowout spill than in a
comparable batch spill.
009154
7.0
References
Airborne Support Inc. (ASI). Airborne Support Inc.: The Leader in Dispersant
Application. (Product Brochure). Airborne Support Inc., Huoma, LA, no date.
Alaska Clean Seas (ACS). Alaska Oil Spill Chemical Application Manual. Alaska
Clean Seas, Anchorage AK, June 1986.
Allen, A.A. and D.H. Dale, "Dispersant mission planner: A computerized model for
the application of chemical dispersants on oil spills", Proceedings of the Eighteenth
Arctic and Marine ai/spill Program Technical Seminar, p. 393-414, 1995.
Belore, R, "The SL Ross oil spill fate and behavior model: SLROSM", Spill Science
and Technology Bulletin (In Press).
Belore, Rand S. Ross, Laboratory study to compare the effectiveness of chemical
dispersants when applied dilute versus neat", Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth
Arctic and Marine ai/spill Program Technical Seminar, p. 733-748,2000.
Biegert Aviation Inc, Airborne Dispersant Delivery System. (Product Brochure),
Biegert Aviation Inc., Chandler, AZ, no date.
Emergency Aerial Dispersant Consortium (EADC), Bringing the Future into Focus.
(Product Brochure), Emergency Aerial Dispersant Consortium, Tynan, TX, no date.
ExxonMobil, Oil Spill Response Manual, ExxonMobil Upstream Research
Company, 2000.
Fingas, M.F., B. Fieldhouse, Z. Wang and J.V. Mullin, "Recent results from
dispersant testing", Proceedings of the Twenty-third Arctic and Marine ai/spill
Program Technical Seminar, p. 681-695, 2000.
Lunel, T, "Field trials to determine quantitative estimates of dispersant efficiency at
sea", Proceedings of the Seventeenth Arctic and Marine ai/spill Program Technical
Seminar, p. 1011-1022, 1994.
Lunel, T., J. Rusin, N. Bailey, C. Halliwell and L. Davies, "The net environmental
benefit of a successful dispersant operation at the Sea Empress incident",
Proceedings of the 1997 International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C., p. 185-194, 1997.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), Gulf-Wide Information System - G-WIS.
Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico Region. MMS 2000-027, September
2000.
009155
Minerals Management Service and Environment Canada, Properties ofcrude oils of

the Outer Continental Shelf-Louisiana Gulf Coast, Report by Emergencies Science
Division, Environment Canada, for the Minerals Management Service, 1996.
Minerals Management Service and Environment Canada, Properties ofadditional
crude oils of the OCS - Louisiana Gulf Coast (Garden Banks Blocks 387 and 426,
Green Canyon Block 184, Mississippi Canyon Block 72 and 807 (1998), and Viosca
Knoll Blocks 826 and 990), Unpublished Report by Emergencies Science Division,
Environment Canada, for the Minerals Management Service, 1998.
Minerals Management Service and Environment Canada, Properties ofadditional
crude oils of the OCS - Louisiana Gulf Coast (Green Canyon 205, Mississippi
Canyon 807 (J 999), and Viosca Knoll Block 826), Unpublished Report by
Emergencies Science Division, Environment Canada, for the Minerals Management
Service, 1999.
Price, I.M., C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear, Oil-Spill Risk Analysis: GulfofMexico,
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Central and Western Lease Sales, 1998-2002, and
Gulf-Wide OCS program, 1998 -2036, OCS Report MMS 97-0040. U.S. Department
of the Interior, 410 pp, 1997.
Regional Response Team VI (RRT IV), OSC Preapproved Dispersant Use Manual,
Version 2.0. (U.S.) Federal Region VI Regional Response Team, May 1996.
Singer, M., S. George, I. Lee, S. Jacobson, L. Weetman, G. Blondina, R. Tjeerdema,
D. Aurand and M. Sowby, Effocts ofdispersant treatment on the acute aquatic
toxicity ofpetroleum hydrocarbons, Archives of Environmental Contamination &
Toxicology. 34(2):177-187, 1998.
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd, A review ofdispersant use on spills ofNorth
Slope crude oil in Prince William Sound and the Gulf ofAlaska, Report to Prince
William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council, Anchorage, Alaska. Report No.
C\634.96.l Dispersants, 1997.
S.L. Ross Environmental Research, Technology Assessment of the Use ofDispersants
on Spills from Drilling and Production Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Outer
Continental Shelf, Report to Minerals Management Service, Engineering and
Research Branch, Herndon, VA, 2000.
Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies (SMART). Developed by U.S.

Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published by
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, W A, March 2000.
009156
TCOSPR, Texas Coastal Oil Spill Planning and Response Atlas-A natural resource
database on CD-ROM, Prepared by Texas General Land Office, Marine Safety
Division U.s. Coast Guard, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, October, 1999 .
. Trudel, K., R. Belore, B. Jessiman, and S. Ross, "A microcomputer-based spill impact
assessment system for untreated and chemically dispersed oil spills in the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico," Proceedings ofthe 1989 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D.C., pp. 533-537, 1989.
Table 1 GOMR Crude Oils That H

Crude Oil Name
API
Gravity
Soill-Related T
Und
Oil Viscosity@60F
Fresh Oil States
Pour Point
OF
0%
15%
25%
Emulsion
Formation
Tendency'
Size of "Window
pC Opportunity"
for Successful
Dispersant Use
10,000 Barre! Batch Spill
2000 eP
SOOOeP
20,OOOeP
2000 cP
5OO0eP
20,000eP
3.3
11
3.9
15
~.Z
~.
9,
~.1
5.
30
5.9
19
33 ..
15.5
67
135
17
68
28
73
23
48
52
~46
14\; .
143
162, ,. .....'.
78
82
234,: 236
disperse@186
40
45
215
65
69
360
341
306
>360
>360
p.360
>360
>360
f>36()._
360
>360
>360
>360
i>360 .;
>360
>360
~(GHLY
~5
.....
~3)b.
231
disperse@117
a. The percentage value refer to the amount of oil evaporation that must occur to start the emulsificatIon process.
'. 55
109
disperse@111
,'.;j
.<y<'
~3(;O
disperse@197
.< .
5
III
.1 C1 . '.'i.1 f, :i>;i;<'~1.:;
54
11i1,.
45
117
009157
EMULSIFIABLE OILS (Hi-E Oils) (Emulsion forms at 0 to 10 % spill evaporation)

20
177
800
[very narrow
-18
4250 ves@O%
preen Canyon 65
33
404
2237 yes@8%
lMiss. Canyon 807 (1999) 28
:Very narrow
?
3454 Ycs@w.
r.-~iy.narrow
lMim~i!tlj4ri$01(1~8) ~~p,;',,: ~.
~f
!l~1
32
1572 yes@6%
~ery narrow
lWest Delta 143
29
MEDIUM EMULSIFIABLE OILS (Av-E Oils) (Emulsion forms at II to 29 % spill evaporation)
yes@23%
26
Green Canyon 205
29
157
543
[Narrow
?
yes@2Ht [Narrow
~'~~~:!Q$\i;;~;!.';t ~'l:;,: ~:r~ . , i 3',::.:.: :125
~90
Garden Banks 387
30
181
579
yes@23%
[Narrow
-38
:29
West Delta 30
11-237 -9
1180
1350 yes@24% [Narrow
Mississippi Canyon 72 32
18
34
195
yes@18%
[Narrow
16
13
118
yes@25% [Narrow
Main Pass 69/225
34
?
16
325
yes@24%
Viosca Knoll 826 #1
32
25
132
[Narrow
17
yes@15% [Narrow
Viosca Knoll 826 #2
31
84
186
?
SLOWLV EMULSIFIABLE OILS (Low-E Oils)(Emulsion forms at 30 to 50+ % spill evaporation)
6
Garden Banks 426
39
13
34
yes@38%
Wide
8
r 139.' 14:71,.:::.:, lSi;\; II
:.131, tyes@:38% I.'icle
~P:~~y4ril84
16:Main Pass 37
39
27
7
36
yes@50% Wide
26
5
34
70
14
[es@50% Wide
~hip Shoal 239
yes@30% wide
South Pass 49
?
146
29
23
5
19
32
yes@34% Wide
South Pass 93
33
23
16
16-551
39
110
tyes@45% Wide
~outh Pass 67
16
1
41
yes@38% Wide
~outh Pass 60
36
122
yes@35%
38
?
7
12
31
Wide
iViosca Knoll 990
PILS THAT DO NOT EMULSIFY (No-E Oils) (Emulsion does not form)
very wide
-63
9
19
54
:Main Pass 306
33
[No
36
65
very wide
[E~gene Island 43
37
32
13
No
il'Io.:L:
:very wide
I
'.".' rl '.' ~5.A IIO':k['r;. 1.6
[No
[Mississippi Canyon 194 35
-40
15
I
~erywide
18
iVerywide
fS,hip Shoal 269
39
44
5
7
[No
very wide
35
7
10
19
[No
~outh Timbalier 130
-17
very wide
50
I
I
[No
lWest Delta 97
-17
~360
'r'J~?:
"'uv
.:f;::~
.'.<Z:.
009158
Table 2 GOMR Spill Scenarios

Model Oil
No.
Spill Description
Spill Volume
Batch Spill
(l a) 2000 bbl and

(I b) 20,000 bbl
Batch Spill
20,000 bbl
(2a) Lo-E Oil

(2b) Av-E Oil
(2c) Hi-E Oil
Batch Spill
100,000 bbI
(3) Hi-E Oil
Surface Blowout,
average rate,
short duration
20,000 bbl =
5000 BOPDbx
4 days
(4a) Lo-E Oil

(4b) Av-E Oil
Surface Blowout,
high flow rate
1,400,000 bbl
100,000 BOPD x
14 days
(5a) Hi-E Oil

(5b) Av-E Oil
Subsurface
Blowout, shallow
water, low flow
20,000 bbI =
5000 BOPDx
4 days
Av-EOil
(6a) 35 m deep
(6b) 50 m deep
(6c) 150m
Subsurface
Blowout, shallow
water, high flow
100,000 bbl =
7200 BOPD x
14 days
Av-E Oil
(7a) 35 m deep
(7b) 50 m deep
(7c) 150 m
9,000,000 bbl =
Subsurface
Blowout,
deep 100,000 BOPD x
water, high flow
90 days
a. Model oIls are marked m Table I
b.
BOPD = barrels of oil per day
(la) Diesel
(lb) No-E Oil
(Sa) Hi-E Oil

(8b) Av-E Oil
Comments
emulsify.
window, as compared to SpilJ#1.
Could be worst-case FPSO spill or
fast
Demonstrates
the
initial
countermeasures
challenge
all
methods for Hi-E oils and even AvOils and lighter.
same-sized batch spill (Spill#2) and
surface blowout (SpiIl#4). Could
also represent "live crude" pipeline
spill.
than surface blowout (Spill#5)
air.
relief well
"I soill
Table 3 Summar \I OJf

Spill Scenario
Spilllufonnation
Emulsification
Tendency
Volume Spilled (bb\)
Discharge Rate (BOPD)
Chanee in Viscosity
Time to Visc~>5000 cP
(hr)
Time to Visc.>20000 cP
(Ju')
(hr)
Time when < 0.1 ppm

(hr)
Peak Concentration
(ppmt
Time Peak Reached (hr)
Ib
2a
2b
2c
4a
Sa
4b
6a
5b
6b
6c
7a
7b
7c
-c---~
No
No
Lo
Av
Hi
2000
Batch
20,000
batch
20,000
batch
20000
batch
20,000
batch
55
96
12
15
~-~
1.1
20
4.6
3.4
1.4
20
6.8
5.1
2.6
10
8.2
42
119
Il3
>720
40
112
110
290
140
420
480
450
890
990
1150
450
820
915
1090
550
1180
1136
20
4.1
3.0
~--
20
Av
Hi
Av
Av
Av
Av
Av
Av
Av
20,000
5000
1,4000,000
100,000
1,4000,000
100,000
20,000
5000
20,000
5000
20))00
100000
7200
100,000
7200
100,000
7200
10
2.3
22
3~5
4.3
4~0
2.9
15
5.2
36
5.5
6.2
4.9
0~017
O~ 15
0.082
0077
0.068
0.12
0.063
0.060
0.050
0.067
0.032
0.030
0.024
Lo
~---~
~-~
20
2.0
1.25
Hi
100:000 20,000
Batch
5000
-~
~--
-~~
20
13.8
13.0
11.2
0.65
0.23
0.1
>720
>720
>720
>720
450
735
825
1003
450
550
566
600
1063
730
11
138
140
66
-~
153
396
396
210
t----~~
0.80
0.40
0,35
0,31
7.2
4.0
3.6
2.5
15
>720
12
>720
1005
1104
1118
1166
37
45
48
\386
0.09
0.047
0.045
0.038
>720
>720
414
306
III
576
432
117
>720
>720
24
27
36
30
33
45
36
43
44
46
66
86
89
90
66
133
150
165
300
300
300
300
373
373
373
373
677
677
677
677
340
340
340
340
422
422
422
422
765
765
765
765
49
51
90
180
300
373
677
340
422
765
39
18
21
23
15
33
t--~~-
t--~
__
0.05
0.024
I-~~-~
0.12
0.06
0.057
0.050
~-
~-
8.4
1.9
1.3
0.9
-~
4.3
r---
c~
54
I--2.5
----
~-
~~--
5000
0~022
18
24
~-
c---~~
~-
c---~~
30
~-
2.86
4.6
3.8
2.4
0.3
0.3
0.27
0.2
0.04
0.65
0.9
0.94
0~75
1.08
1.08
0.91
12
21
21
18
1.3
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.9
009159
Change in Slick
Thicknesses (mm)
Initial Thickness
Thickness at 6 Hours
Thickness at 12 Hours
-Thickness at 48 Hours
Time to Complete
Dissipation ofSlick(hr}
Time to < .05 mm (hr)
Slick Widths em)
Tnitial Width
At6 Hours
At 12 Hours
At 48 Hours
At Loss of Slick or 720
hrs
Naturally Dispersed
Oil (top 10 metres)
Time when < 5ppm (hr)
Time when < I ppm
la
Table 4 Ch
fd'
terisf
latfi
'lable in the GulfofM
.
Average
Payload,
US gal
Pump
Rate,
USgpm
Swath
Width,
feet
Average
Transit
Speed,
Knots
_C-1301ADDS-oacka
5500
600
100
300
24
140
DC_4b,c
2000-2500
500
100
214
157
1200
185
100
l30
l30
Alrtruck AT-802e
800
120
80
200
140
0.5
I
1
200 miles
500
120
80
200
140
0.5
200 miles
250
79
80
90
I
1
1
50
0.5
0.25
1.75 hours
Application
System
DC-3
Alrtruck AT-502
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Start-up Spray Re-Posit.

Time, Speed, Time,
hours
Knots
min
Re-Supply
Time,
hours
Range
7 hours
____ 900
lI8
350
5
7
2
1
Vessel Dg
20000
25
25
2
60
175
1
Characteristics as per Biegert AViation Inc. (no date)
Characteristics as per Alaska Clean Seas (1986)
Values reported in the literature for aircraft logistic characteristics such as payload are somewhat variable. For the DC-4 payload values
range from 2000 to 2500 gallons. The value used in calculations is at the upper end of this ran&e, 2500 gallons. It must be recognized tha1
the payload ofthe existing DC-4 platfonn in the Gulf of Mexico area is somewhat lower than thls at 2000 gallons.
As per ExxonMobil (2000)
Characteristics as per Emergency Aerial Dispersant Consortium (no date)
Modeled after NRC Vessel"Jim Gil, 2X450 gal tank capa~ity, single nozzle application s system, 2 eductor units with 1000 gpm (l to 12 %
dispersant), and a throw of 175 feet.
Modeled after new ~ortable single-nozzle spray system developed by National Response Corporation and mounted on one of their new
crew-cargo vessels. ystem characteristics are as follows (A. Woods, pers. comm.):
Payload - capacity is up to 20,000 gallons in the fonn of up to lOx 2000-gallon DOT marine-portable tanks;
Pump rates - variable at 12,25,40, and 60 gallons per minute;
- Swath width - range of nozzle varies with pump rate up to 70 feet @ 60 gpm, with one system on each side. Allowing for the 35' beam
ofthevessel, swath width is 140';
Vessel speed - maximum speed is 25 knots
009160
Helicooter
Vessel Af
--
009161
Fate and Persistence of Oil:

Scenario 2b - DC-4 at 30 n.miles from base
en
c
'c ..-..
.;
E
e=
.
Q,I
a::..!:!.
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
..........
-.....
---------------------------------l11me Window =58 hours
24
48
72
96
120
144
-Chemically Dispersed -
'Without Dispersion
Figure l.Fate and persistence of oil
(-!>
MP
(Ol
""FG
E>DW
(~)
Launch Site
;glrm
lan2S"1 E3 E3 E3 H 2
Figure 2 Locations of spill launch sites and shoreline segments (From SL Ross 2000)
009162
Table 5 Dispersant spraying capacity of platfonns at a distancea
Platfonn
Operating
Distance
n. mi.
Number
of sorties
per day
Payload,
3
m
Volume of
dispersant
sprayed
per day,
m3
Estimated
volume
ofoit
dispersed
per dal,
m3
C-130/ADDS Pack (c)
30
100
300
5
4
3
20.8
20.8
20.8
104
83.2
62.4
2080
1664
1248
DC-4 (d)
30
100
300
6
4
3
7.5
7.5
7.5
45.5
30
22.5
900
600
450
30
100
300
DC-3 (e)
4
3
4.6
4.6
4.6
27.6
18.4
13.8
552
372
276
AT-802
30
100
8
5
3.0
3.0
24
15
480
300
30
27
30
11
0.9
0.9
9.9
540
198
3.4
3.4
3.4
30.6
6.8
3.4
612
136
68
75.7
75.7
60.6
60.6
30.3
1211
1211
Helicopter
Vessel A
Vessel D
30
100
2
1
30
100
300
1
1
0.5
75.7
605.5
~.Based on response a batch spill of3180 m (20,000 barrels).

3
p.Assuming 20 volumes of oil are dispersed per I volume of dispersant sprayed.

F.ADDS Pack specifications as per Biegert Aviation: Maximum Reservoir Capacity == 5500 gallons
20.8
cu. m.), Recommended Capacity== 5000 gallons (18.9 cu.m.).
~.Values reported in literature for payload of DC-4 range from 2000 to 2500 gallons (7.5 to 9.5 cu.m.).
Value used here is 2000 (ASI, no date)
e.Values in literature for payload ofDC-3 range from 1000 to 1200 gallons. Value used here is
1200 gallons, as per (ASI, no date)
Re: CONOPS Plan review
009163
Subject: Re: CONOPS Plan review

From: Knoy.Jim@epamail.epa.gov
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:24:57 -0400
To: "McElroy, Amy LT" <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>
CC: Amy. MoEI roy@uscg.mil, HQS-DG-lST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP <NIC-HQ-IASG@uscg.mil>, anthony.s.lloyd@uscg.mil,
lawrence.E.Greene@uscg.mil, David.T.Ormes@uscg.mil, Tulis.Dana@epamail.epa.gov, Canzler.Erica@epamail.epa.gov, Mjoness.Mark@epamail.epa.gov,
Schumann.Jean@epamail.epa.gov, Runge.Roberta@epamail.epa.gov, Faulkner.Mike@epamail.epa.gov, Lynch.Mary-Kay@epamail.epa.gov,
Dietrich.Debbie@epamail.epa.gov
Thank you for the opportunity to review this docUll1ent. It is EPA's
opinion that, regardless of the name of the document, it constitutes an
attempt Co revise the NCP, which according to the following, referenced
Executive Order, is EPA'S responsibility~
EPA does want to help the
NIC achieve its goal to improve the IlSG response to the spill and is
scheduling a standing NCP 1 topical meeting to discuss with you your
requirements and help determine the best way forward.
Mr Faulkner will
provide the NRT members scheduling information in the near future.
Link to E:O 12777:
b;;. t p: {L'1,plD~~'i!.f~L~9.91 b'?~L5E.21~- bu s h -J1,I1.I!J~.J;..!!!
E:xecutive Order 12i77-Implementation of Section 311 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act as .mended and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
sec. 1 (4) (b) (ll gives the responsibility for revisions to the NCP.
Revisions shall be made in consultation with members of the NRT prior to
publication for notice and comment. All revisions shall be subject to
review and approval by the Director of OMB.
, . (b) (l) The responsibility for the revision of the Ncr and all the
other functions vested in the President by Sections 105 (a) I (b} r {el I
and (g), 125, and 301 (f) of the Act, by Section 311 (dl ill of the
Federal W.ter Pollution Control Act, and by Section 4201 (c) of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 is delegated to the Adm,nistrator of the
En?ironmental Protection Agency {' ~the Administ~ator' f)
. Ict} Revisions to the NCP shall be made in consultation with members of

the NRT prior to publication for notice and comment .
. {el All revisions to the NeP f whether in proposed or final form,
shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget (. 'OMS J t) '1
Changes to the Ne? require notice and comment rulernaking
Jim Knoy
Senior Planning/Policy Advisor

Office
Office of Homeland Security
EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Ariel Rios North
Ma i l Code 11 0 9A
Room 6426 Q
Washington D.C. 20460
EPA Office:
Adrninistrator~s
lmoy. j im@eoa ~ gov
1------------>
1 ,rom:
1
1------------>
>--------------_ .. _.. _------------------- .. _--_ . . _-------------------------------------------------------------------.. -.. ------------------------I"MeElroy, Amy LT"
~Amv.McElroy@uscg.mil>
>- - - --- -- ... _-- --- -- - - -- -- - -- --- --- --- --- ---- - - -- - --- ----- -- --- - -- -- - - ... _----- - ------------ --- - -- -- --------- --- -- - - - -- - ---------- -- - -- - - - - - --- - ~
1------------>
I To:
I
1------------>
>-------- -- - -- - -- ------- --- --- - - - ----- -- - ------- --- -- - - - - -_ ... - ------ -- --- -- ... - -- ... - - -- --.. _- - --- -- - - --- -- -- -- -- - .. _- ---- - - --- - -- _... -- -- --- ---- ----I "HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ- INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP' <NIC-IiQ-
IASG@u5cg . rni 1 >
>-- ---------- --- -- .. - -- - -- -------------- - - -------- --- ---- -_ .. -- ---- --- -------- ------- - ---- -------- --- -- -- -- -- - - -- - ------_ ... --- --- - - - --- -- -------
1------------>
1 Date:
1
1------------>
>-------------------------------------------_ . . . . _. . . ----.. __ . . ------------------------------------.. _--------------------------------------------106/18/2010 01:44
PM
>-...... ---- -- - - -- -- -- -- ....... _-- ---_ ... - - - -- -_ .. ------------ - ---_ ... -- --- --- ----------_ .. - - --......... _... ----- ---- -- -- - - - -_ ... - -- ----------- - - ----------- --- ----_ ..
1------------>
1 Subject:
of2
9/27/2010 2:05 PM
Re: CONOPS Plan review
009164
1------------>
>-.... -------------------------_ .. _-------_ ...... _-_ ... _---------------------------------------_ ... _----------------------------------------------------1CONOPS li'lan
review
>- - ..... - -- -- _.. _....... --- ----- ---- -- - - -- .. --- -- _.. ---- -------- -- .... ---- - -- ---- --- -- --- -_ .. _.... - ------ ------- --- -- --- - --_ .. -- -- ------ -- -_ .. - -- ----- - ------ --
IASG.
Please review and comment on this document this afternoon, by 1600. All
will be provided to the Strategic Planning Group for
commen~s
adjudication.
The title of the document is begin discussed. This is not a change to
the NCP, as that would fall under federal rule making process.
very Respectfully,
limy McElroy, LT
NIC-Interagency Solutions Group
[attachment "DH Incident Specific Annex to the Nep lB_June_2010 .docx"
deleted by
20f2
Jim
Knoy/OC/USEPAlUSJ
9/27/20]02:05 PM
009165
Re: talk?
Subject: Re: talk?

From: Michele Jacobi <Michele.Jacobi@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:38:12 -0700
To: "Mark. W. Miller" <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>
Hey Mark-1
haven't decided it if I am even going to DC. I need to work
out some things and I will decide tomorrow what my next steps will be. I have
strong issues with
of our organization and need to figure out where
management stands before I more forward. I will let you know if I will be in DC
and working later in the week.
Michele
i So I leave the call for 30 minutes (I had a Mass Balance/Oil Budget conference
i call
to manage) and I get this email from you? Ouch.
I(new
Yes let's talk on the phone and face to face next week. BTW they have all their
hardware installed so it would be good if you could come over
in the
I week.
,!
Are you available Tuesday?
iA couple things first -
t 1. Whatever was said (words, tone) it did not mean that ERD is rej
ERMA.
i You were brought in to balance out the discussion with your technical expertise
~ so we didn't go flying down some crazy dead end path.
; 2. This issue with the uncertainty lines is* BIG* issue (and started way before
: the one we discussed yesterday) for the CG. It started with the Fisheries
i Closure - "NOAA is killing us with closures that are too big and completely
i unrealistic. They close where there is no oil." CG wants smaller
lines. I would like the oil to stop flowing. Neither of us will get what we
j want.
1,
13. This is not an issue of Steve or Brad's inability to explain uncertainty and
! like them I answer directly to ADM Allen who has also brought up this concern.
I We all need to work together on this.
lwe need to come up with a way to address CG's concerns. Whatever that is it will
to involve ERMA (and Geoplatform) but that is collateral.
!need
Ii
I would like to see CG tell us exactly what they want so that we can respond
directly. In the mean time ERMA has a bunch of really smart people working on
I it. I was going to ask the NIC ERMA team to bring this up at your daily call
! today to see if folks have some idea how to make the uncertainty lines so people
! don't
them
extents. I will continue to work with SSCs and
: Seattle - now
what I just said - I will be standing inbetween these two
! easy going mild mannered groups. Now throw ERMA into this conversation. There is
! only so much oil to
on storjmy waters here.
!i Mark
i
lMichele Jacobi wrote:

!
i So Mark, I need to talk to you because I believe Steve and Brad's in ability
to explain the offshore trajectories and instead blaming it on the limitations
I of ERMA has caused me to give up on ORR and it's management for not defending
! our work. I have only heard pieces of the story regarding the knife in my
back but would like your perspective before I pull the trigger on my plan B.
Is there a good time to talk to you tomorrow? michele
I
lof2
9/27/20102:05 PM
Re: Mass Balance/ Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EOTI1:00 COTlll:OO POT
009166
Subject: Re: Mass Balancel Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/1:00 CDT/11:00 PDT
From: BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 201008:32:36 0700
CC: Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>, Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K
Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, vlabson@usgs.gov, Amy McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>,
Nathalie Valetta.Silver <Nathalie.ValetteSilver@noaa.gov>
As promised, here are the suggested Excel formulas for mass balance. I should be able to
compile the expert opinions early next week.
----- Original Message ----From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010 6:12 am
Subject: Mass Balance/ Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/l:00 CDT/l1:00 PDT
To: Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.aov>, Martha N
Garcia <mgarcia@usas.gov>, Mark K Sogge , vlabson@usgs.gov, Amy
McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>
Here is the call in info for the discussion 866-717-2576
PC 2085872
Possible Agenda 1. Area Command Overview
2. USGS brief
Goal is agreement on component input numbers to calculation or at
least
.
agreement on methodology.
Mark
t tT
application/vnd.openxmlformats
on en - ype.
I Content-Encoding: base64
C
Mass Balance formulas (r).docx
I of 1
9/27/2010 2:05 PM
009167
June 19,2010
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ORR

Suggested test constants have not been peer reviewed
and are subject to change after such review
009168
ICS 209
threat.
PRESENT SPREADSHEET
The current equivalent item to the ISC209 form is an Excel spreadsheet that lists the
following items:
Oil discharged
Oil directly collected(Top Hat or RITT)
Oil water collected
Oil burned
Oil evaporated (includes some oil dissolved)
Oil naturally dispersed
Oil chemically dispersed
Chemically dispersed oil is separated into subsurface and surface operations

SUGGESTED APPROACH
1) Use of spill experts
I have distributed to several experts in the field a suggested approach for
calculating mass balance for this spill. Some have already provided advice and I
expect the others will shortly. I will then compile their consensus judgment into
recommended values for the spill constants listed below.
2) Compute a best case, worst case, and expected scenario. The worst case will
assume maximum release and minimum removal. Best case will do the reverse.
Expected scenario will use average release estimate and average expected
removal.
3) Modify the existing formulas for the Excel spreadsheet as described below.
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Some terms will have different values depending upon whether we are looking at best
case, worst case or average case. They win be listed as
TERM = (average, best, worst)
009169
=day of spill. The riser was cut (June 3) on j =45
VSU)= volume in bbl of surface oil on day j

VRU) = oil release rate in bblfday on day j
VREU) = effective release rate in bblfday on day j
VDO)= total oil volume in bbl dispersed in bblJday on day j
veO) = total oil volume in bbl of chemically dispersed oil on day j
VDBU) = oil volume in bbl dispersed at the bottom on day j
VDCU) = oil volume in bbl chemically dispersed at bottom on day j
VDNU) = oil volume in bbl naturally dispersed at bottom on day j
VeB(j) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the bottom on day j
vesO) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the surface on day j
VBUU)= volume in bbl burned on day j
VOWO) = volume in bbl of oily water collected on day j
The following assignment of rate constants should be considered TEMPORARY for testing
purposes and will change when we compile the experts' consensus
Kdl = (0.1. 0.2,0.05) = natural dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd2 = (0.75, 1, 0.25) = chemical dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd3 = (0.25,0.5,0.1) =chemical dispersion effectiveness at the surface
Evl =(0.37,0.44,0.33) =evaporation rate on freshly surfaced oil (includes dissolution)
Ev2 = (0.04, 0.06, 0) = evaporation on day-old oil
Kow= (0.1, 0.4, 0.05) =net oil fraction of oily water (see note below)
FORMULAS
Leakage
VRO) = (30,000, 20,000, 40,000) ifj < 45
= (40,000, 35,000,60,000) if j ~ 45
VREU) = VRO) - VDTcn
Dispersed oil
VDCU) =20*Kd2*VCBU) but not to exceed VREU)
VDNU) =(VREO)- VDCO))*Kdl
VDB(j) = VDCO) + VDNU)
VDSO) = 20*Kd3*VCS(j) but not to exceed VSO)
VCO) =VDSO) + VDeO)
VDO) = VDBO) + VDSm
009170

VE(j) = (VRE(j) - VOBO) - VBU(j))*Evl+(VREO-l) - VOBO-l) - VBUO-l))*Ev2
Skimmed Oil
VNWO) =Kow*VOWO)
Floating oil
VSO)
=VSO-l) +VREO) - VEO) - VNW(j) - VBUO) - VOO)
We should have the experts' consensus by early next week. In the meantime, I suggest
modifying the Excel spreadsheet with these new formulas for testing purposes only_ The
ratio of oil to water in the collected oily water should be actually measured. The numbers
suggested above are simply based upon what is reported to be the existing default.
009171
Re: Mass Balancel Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/l:OO CDTlIl :00 PDT
Subject: Re: Mass Balance! Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT!1 :00 CDT!11 :00 PDT
From: BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 09:15:44 -0700
To: Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
CC: Mark W Miller <MarkW.MiJler@noaa.gov>
Steve,
I have included Exxon and Shell people but I don't know any BP people who do
this. Dave Fritz is a biologist. Got any names?
Bill
Original Message ----From: Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
Date: Saturday, June 19, 2010 9:10 am
Subject: Re: Mass Balance/ Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/l:00 CDT/l1:00 PDT
To: Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov, Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
if Bill
!! I
!
~
!
I
believe it is important (very important) to have BP experts included
here.
I Steve
i Bill. Lehr@noaa.gov
wrote:
promised, here are the suggested Excel formulas for mass balance.
should be able to compile the expert opinions early next week ..
11 As
Ij Ii
ii
II
!~
! ----- Original Message
I From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
! Date: Thursday I June 17, 2010 6: 12 am
1!1 Subject: Mass Balance/ Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/1:00 CDT/11:00 PDT
I To: Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr
I <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge
, vlabson@usgs.gov, Amy McElroy
<Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.ValetteSilver@noaa.qov>
I!
It.'.
!
1
I:
11
!!
II
I,!
11
Possible Agenda -
II
I
:II
'II
1. Area Command Overview

2. USGS brief
ill

least
!
It
i .,
iI
lof2
III
Here is the call in info for the discussion -
I11
IIi
'1
9/27/2010 2:05 PM
009172
Re: Mass Balance/ Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EOTII :00 COT/II :00 PDT
agreement on methodology.
Mark
2of2
Ii
9/27/20102:05 PM
RE: some spill response opinions
009173
Subject: RE: some spill response opinions

From: "Alan A. Allen" <
@spiltec.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 09:39:01 -0700
To: BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov, "'Lambert,Patrick [NCR1'" <
@ec.gc.ca>,
@cia.com, 'Per Daling'
@sintef.no>, Victoria.Broje@shell.com,
consultant@alunlewis.
. .
@sbcglobal.com,
Thomas.S.Coolbaugh@exxonmobil.com, 'Ed Overton'
t@lsu.edu>, 'David Usher'
<dusher@marinepollutioncontrol.com>, 'Merv Fingas' <
@shaw.ca>, 'Robert
Jones' <Robert.Jones@noaa.gov>,
@slross.com
CC: 'Steve Lehmann' <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>, 'Mark W Miller'
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Bill,
I agree with the comments of most provided so far, including the position taken by Thomas Coolbaugh
regarding the generally higher efficiency to be expected with the dispersants. On the other hand, I have
noticed (while spotting for the burns) that there really is a significant iltargeting" problem, at times, hitting
the heavier layers of oil. Perhaps this is why you show a very low "effectiveness average" for the
dispersants. The streamers of heavier oil (surrounded by large areas of metallic and rainbow sheens) are
typically narrow, meandering, and difficult to hit accurately from the air. At times, I've witnessed some
excellent slick-following efforts, but even then, there is a lot of heavy oil that is missed while thinner oil is
overdosed.
Of interest, I've found, are the observations by us ("spotting" prior to and during the burns) and by those
collecting the oil in booms and setting igniters, that the heavier concentrations of oil often seem to burst
into a slurry when hit by the boom - even when the boom is properly being towed at slow speed (about Y2
to % knot). The oil, whether treated by chemicals at the well-head (injection at the seabed), or simply
weathered and emulsified naturally, seems to break up (at times) into a slurry that is hard to capture, and
therefore, impossible to ignite. Other times, the heavier oil layers seem to be bit more stable and remain as
a collectable mass within the booms. Even these masses, however, are very difficult to ignite. We've had to
increase the size of our hand-held igniters to get the oil to ignite, and the amount of volatiles over the
captured slicks are so low that we are able to place the igniter (with "starter" flare burning) directly on the
captured slick by hand without fear of a rapid ignition. Once started, the burns spread very slowly over the
entire slick within the boom, and burn well. The numbers I've provided for "upper" and "lower" estimates
of burn rate and therefore high and low estimates of volume burned, have been discussed with Ian Buist
and others - we, together with the findings of numerous burns over the years, support these values as
reasonable estimates for the elimination of the captured oil.
Hope to see you soon, and to help with the mass-balance effort.
AI Allen
"
From: Bill Lehr [mailto:BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 1:09 PM

To: Lambert,Patrick [NCR];
@cia.com; Per Daling; Victoria.Broje@sheJl.comi
@spiltec.com;
consultant@alunJewis.
'jrpayne@sbcglobal.com'; Thomas.s.Coolbaugh@exxonmobil.comi Ed
Overton; David Usher; Merv Fingas; Robert Jones;
@slross.com
Cc: Steve Lehmann; Mark W Miller
Subject: some spill response opinions
Dear folks who actually know something about spill response,
We (NOAA/ERD) have been asked to assist the Incident Command prepare a mass balance for daily
operations for this spill. Obviously, a spill originating a mile beneath the ocean is not a typical
10f4
9/27/20102:05 PM
009174
incident. I would like your comments on the suggestions below. Because of the emergency nature of
the request, I need a quick turn around for your responses.
Thanks for your help,
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ERD
206719 1813 (24 hour cell)
MASS BALANCE FOR THE DEEPWATER HORIZON SPILL.

Background:
Spill is leaking at least 35,000 bbl/day of 35 API oil, mixed in with produced gas. The source is one
mile underwater in the Gulf of Mexico/ average water temperature around 32 C. Sea state has
generally been low.
Calculating Oil dispersed into the water column:

The oil and gas leaking out at the Deep Horizon oil spill are all buoyant and, therefore would,
neglecting other processes, rise to the surface. However, one cannot neglect other processes.
Originally, the escaping plume will be a mixture of gas and oil, with additional gas dissolved within
the oil. According to the Clarkson University model CDOG, this plume will maintain its integrity for at
most a few hundred meters with a strong positive buoyancy. Several competing processes will
interfere with this process. The gas will rise faster than the oil, 'slipping' past the droplets but will
also form hydrates with the surrounding water. Water will be entrained into the plume by
turbulence that will also contribute to changing droplet size distribution of the oil mixed into the
plume. These oil droplets will rise to the surface based upon Stokes law, where/ for the smallest
droplets, the rise velocity can be approximated by the formula
u .... ~~!!:.~
Jli!~, where,1 is the water viscosity, 11p is density difference between oil and water/ d is
droplet diameter and g is gravitational acceleration constant. For small enough oil droplet size, the
rise velocity is so small that competing processes affect it before it can make it to the surface. These
processes include dissolution, biodegradation, and particle-oil interaction. These processes will vary
in strength depending upon where the oil droplet is located. Field measurement may help to
quan.tify these processes but, as an arbitrary cut-off value, one can take 70 microns as the minimum
droplet size below which that droplet is considered permanently dispersed.
""
The droplet size distributions in the plume are greatly affected by use of dispersant chemicals that
lower the surface tension ofthe oil and produce smaller droplet sizes. There is extremely little data
on the droplet size distribution for oil in the water column for this incident. Some limited data exists
20f4
9/27/20102:05 PM
009175
from the RV Brook McCall Survey LlSST measurements performed by the Bedford Institute of
Oceanography. If one, extrapolates their results, and dangerous exercise with a high degree of
uncertainty, to the entire spill, then one can conclude that perhaps 30% ofthe oil released during
non-dispersant operations were dispersed into the water column and up to 60 % were dispersed for
. oil in contact with dispersant chemicals. However, since the samples were subsurface, they may be
preferentially sampling the droplet distribution formed initially. Moreover, the NOAA model,
ADIOS2, suggests that if the spill occurred at the surface, less than 8 % of the oil would disperse.
Different reports from the Ixtoc 1 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979 claim that between 3% to
26% of the oil released from a much shallower depth ended up in the water column or on the
bottom.
As an operational estimate, we suggest the follOWing values for natural dispersion for the subsurface
oil release:
Minimum: 10%
Maximum: 20%
Best Guess: 15 %
Chemical dispersion
Chemical dispersants lower oil surface tension, resulting in smaller droplet sizes. Traditionally,
emulsified oil, beca use of its high viscosity, is difficult to chemically disperse. Much of the surface oil
is emulsified. However, SMART Tier 1 and Tier 2 observations suggest that surface dispersant spray
operations are at least partially successful. Current assumptions assume a 3 to 1 effectiveness (three
gallons of oil dispersed for every gallon of dispersant applied).
Chemical dispersants added to the plume at the source are certainly more effective than surface
spraying. In fact, it is almost a perfect situation for dispersant application; fresh oit direct contact
between dispersant and oil, high turbulent energy. Very preliminary subsurface plume observations
and modeling suggest that a 20to 1 effectiveness number is not unreasonable
Suggested operational estimate:
Surface operations (includes problems with hitting the oil):
3 to 1 effectiveness average.
1 to 1 low,
5 to 1 high
Subsurface operations:
15 to 1 effectiveness average,
10to 1 low,
20 to 1 high
Evaporation
In the process of rising through the water column and weathering on the sea surface, oil loses many
constituents to dissolution and evaporation. Since this oil contains a high fraction of volatile
compounds, we expect that a large fraction ofthe oil is lost to evaporation. We used the pseudocomponent evaporation model used in ADIOS2, initialized with data on the oil composition provided
30f4
9/27/20102:05 PM
009176
by BP, to estimate the fraction of oil possibly lost to evaporation over the period on the order of
weeks to months. After the more volatile compounds have evaporated, the remaining oil tends to
persist without evaporative change for many months. Our models suggest that as much as 46% of
the oil can be lost to evaporation over several weeks on the sea surface.
We measured the composition of weathered oil collected from the sea surface on 16 May using
GC/MS, and analyzed the results using the pseudo-component evaporation model. We found that
the weathered oil sample had lost 38% of its mass to the combination of evaporation and
dissolution. This analysis could be improved with a careful simulated evaporation study on the fresh
oil, but we have not yet initiated this study.
As an operational estimate, we suggest the following values for evaporation:

1st day: 37% ofthe oil that makes itto the surface
2
nd
day: 4% of surface oil that is ~ess than two days old
Burning;
AI Allen is conducting the burn operations and reporting the amount burned. He is using 0.07
gpm/sqft for un-emulsified oil and 0.05 for the emulsified oil. He notes that these two burn rates
have been used for years and are generally accepted as conservative burn rates. We suggest that we
simply accept his reported values.
Skimming:
Operations are reporting the volume of oily water rather than the volume of oil. The skimmers are of
different types, are operated at different skill levels, and in different states of weathered oil. The
results are often then blended in common storage tanks. Rather than estimate oil-water ratios, we
suggest simple measurements ofthe barge oil.
4of4
9/27/20102:05 PM
009177
Re: Mass Balance! Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT! I :00 CDTIlI :00 PDT
Subject: Re: Mass Balance/ Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/1 :00 CDT/11 :00 PDT
From: Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:54:47 -0400
CC: BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov, Amy McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>, Mark
K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>, vlabson@usgs.gov
If there is a conf call this PM at 2 EST I do not have the Number to call. Please advise. Thanks.
Nathalie
----- Original Message ----From: Martha N Garcia <mqarcia@usgs.gov>
Date: Saturday, June 19, 2010 11:59 am
Subject: Re: Mass Balance! oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT!l:OO CDT/l1:00 PDT
To: Bi11.Lehr@noaa.Qov
Cc: Amy McElroy <Arny.McElroy@uscc.mil>, "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Mark K 50gge
, Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>, Steve Lehmann
<5teve.Lehmann@noaa.cov>, vlabson@usgs.gov
I'm on a 001 call at I, will plan to call in after 001 call is over
,,
If not, will get a download from Mark S
---------------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------------------------

Reston, VA 20192
1 of 1
sgs.gov
9/27/20102:06 PM
009180
Fw: Mass Balancel Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDTII :00 CDTI11 :00 PDT
Subject: Fw: Mass Balancer Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/1 :00 CDT/11 :00 PDT
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:05:52 -0400
To: Peter CDR Hoffman <Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>
CC: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.ValetteSilver@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Peter, Bill Lehr is working on the expert assumptions. I suspect you will get something
this coming week
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
fax
----- Original Message

From: Bill.Lehr
Sent: 06/19/2010 08:32 AM MST
To: "Mark.W.Miller" CMark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Cc: Steve Lehmann cSteve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>; Martha Garcia; Mark Sogge; Victor Labson; Amy
McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>; Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Mass Balance/ Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/1:00 CDT/11:00 PDT
As promised, here are the suggested Excel formulas for mass balance. I should be able to
compile the expert opinions early next week.
----- Original Message ----From: "Mark.W.Mi11er" CMark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

Subject: Mass Balance/ Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/1:00 CDT/11:00 PDT
To: Steve Lehmann cSteve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Martha N
Garcia cmgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge , vlabson@usgs.gov, Amy
McElroy CAmy.McElroy@uscq.mil>, Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>
1 Here is the call in info for the discussion
Possible Agenda
i 1. Area Command Overview

2. USGS brief
i
I 3. USCG/NOAA (M~Elroy and Lehr) overview
I
1 least
;, agreement on methodology .
. Mark
Mass Balance formulas (r).docx Content-Type:
lof2
application/vnd.openxmlforrnats-
9/27/20102:06 PM
009181
Fw: Mass Balancel Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDTIl :00 CDT!II :00 PDT
20f2
9/27/20102:06 PM
009182
. . . . .~(ltS-)-... De~....... __
~~~
June 19, 2010
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ORR

009183
ICS 209
threat.
PRESENT SPREADSHEET
following items:
Oil discharged
Oil water collected
Oil burned
Oil chemically dispersed

SUGGESTED APPROACH
removal.
case, worst case or average case. They will be listed as
TERM = (average, best, worst)
009184
j = day of spill. The riser was cut (June 3) on j :;: 45
VSO):::;: volume in bbl of surface oil on day j

VRO) : :;: oil release rate in bblJday on day j
VREO) = effective release rate in bblJday on day j
VOTO) = volume in bbl of oil directly collected by Top Hat or RITT on day j
VDO)= total oil volume in bbl dispersed in bbljday on day j
VCO) =total oil volume in bbl of chemically dispersed oil on day j
VOBO) = oil volume in bbl dispersed at the bottom on day j
VOCO) = oil volume in bbl chemically dispersed at bottom on day j
VCBO) ;; volume in bbl of dispersants used at the bottom on day j
VCSO) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the surface on day j
VOSO) ;; volume in bbl chemically dispersed at the surface on day j
VNWO) = net oil volume in bbl"collected on day j
Kd1 = (0.1, 0.2, 0.05) = natural dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd2 = (0.75, 1, 0.25) :;: chemical dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd3 = (0.25, 0.5, 0.1) :;: chemical dispersion effectiveness at the surface
Ev1 = (0.37,0.44,0.33) = evaporation rate on freshly surfaced oil (includes dissolution)
Kow= (0.1,0.4, 0.05) = net oil fraction of oily water (see note below)
FORMULAS
Leakage
VRO) = (30,000,20,000,40,000) ifj < 45
= (40,000, 35,000, 60,000) if j ;:: 45
VREO) = VRO) - VOTm
Dispersed oil
VDCO) = 20*Kd2*VCBO) but not to exceed VREO)
VONO) :;: (VREO)- VDCO))*Kd1
VDBO) =VDCO) + VDNO)
VDSO) = 20*Kd3*VCSO) but not to exceed VSO)
VCO) = VDSO) + VDCO)
VOO) = VOBO) + VDSO)
009185

VE(j) = (VRE(j) - VDBO) - VBUO))*Evl+(VREO-l) - VDBO-l) - VBUO-l))*Ev2
Skimmed Oil
VNWO)=Kow*VOWO)
Floating oil
VS(j) = VSO-l) +VRE(j) - VEO) - VNW(j) - VBU(j) - VDO)
We should have the experts' consensus by early next week. In the meantime, I suggest
modifying the Excel spreadsheet with these new formulas for testing purposes only. The
[Fwd: Re: Mass Balance/ Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/l :00 CDT/l1
...
009186
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Mass Balance! Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/1:00 CDT/11:00 PDT]
From: "Mark.WMilier" <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 201009:11:44 -0400
To: "Lundgren, Scott" <Scott.R.Lundgren@uscg.mil>
- - Original Message-Subject:Re: Mass Balance! Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDT/1:00 CDT/11:00 PDT
Date:Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:32:36 -0700
From:BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov
To:Mark.W.Miller <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>
CC:Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>, Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge ,
viabson@usgs.gov, Amy McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Nathalie Valette-Silver <NathalieValette-Silver@noaa.gov>
References:<4C1A1 F30.101 0003@noaa.gov>
As promised, here are the suggested Excel formulas for mass balance. I should be able to compile the expert opinions ear ly next week.
----- Original Messa9'e ----From: "Marl" W.Millerfl' <Mark.W~Miller@noaa.90v>

Subject: Mass Balance/ Oil Budget Call at 2:00 EDTil:OO CDT/l1:00 PDT
To: Steve Lehmann <Steve. Lehmann@noaa.Qov>t Bill Lehr <8ill.l..ehr@noaa.gov>, Martha N Garcia
<ln9arcia@us9s~qoV>,
Mark K Sogge Here is the call in info for the discussion

>
> a66-711-2516
>
> PC 20BSSn
>
>
> Possible Agenda

>
> l. Area Command Overview
>
2. {)SGS
brief
> 3. {)SCG/NOAA (McElroy and Lehr) overview
>
> Goal is agreement on component input numbers to calculation or at
> least
> agreement on methodology.
>
:> Mark
!iMass Balance fonnulas (r).docx
1 of 1
Content-Type:
application/vnd.openxmlfonmats-officedocument.wordprocessingml,document
C
b
64
ontent- ncodlng: ase
9/27/20102:06 PM
009187
June 19,2010
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ORR
1/\

009188
ICS 209
threat.
PRESENT SPREADSHEET
following items:
Oil discharged
Oil water collected
Oil burned
Oil chemicaJIy dispersed

SUGGESTED APPROACH
removal.
case, worst case or average case. They will be listed as
TERM =(average, best, worst)
009189
j = day of spill. The riser was cut (June 3) on j = 45
VSO)= volume in bbl of surface oil on day j

VRO) = oil release rate in bbljday on day j
VREO) = effective release rate in bbljdayon day j
VDTO) = volume in bbl of oil directly coHected by Top Hat or RITT on day j
VDO)= total oil volume in bbl dispersed in bbljday on day j
veO) = total oil volume in bbl of chemically dispersed oil on day j
VDBO) = oil volume in bbl dispersed at the bottom on day j
VDCO) = oil volume in bbl chemically dispersed at bottom on day j
VeBO) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the bottom on day j
VCSO) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the surface on day j
Kdl = (0.1,0.2,0.05) = natural dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd2 = (0.75, 1,0.25) = chemical dispersion effectiveness frCiction on the bottom
Kd3 = (0.25, 0.5, 0.1) = chemical dispersion effectiveness at the surface
Evl = (0.37, 0.44, 0.33) = evaporation rate on freshly surfaced oil (includes dissolution)
Ev2 = (0.04, 0.06, 0) = evaporation on day~old oil
Kow= (0.1, 0.4, 0.05) = net oil fraction of oily water (see note below)
FORMULAS
Leakage
VRO) = (30,000, 20,000,40,000) ifj < 45
=(40,000, 35,000, 60,000) ifj ~ 45
VREO) =VR(j) - VDTO)
Dispersed oil
VDe(j) =20*Kd2*VCBO) but not to exceed VRE(j)
VDN(j) = (VREO)- VDC(j))*Kdl
VDBO) =VDCO) + VDNO)
VDSO) =20*Kd3*VCSO) but not to exceed VSO)
VCO) = VDSO) + VDCO)
VDO) = VDBO) + VDSO)
009190

VEO) = (VREO) - VDBO) - VBUo)J*Evl+(VREO-l) - VDBO-l) - VBUO-l))*Ev2
Skimmed Oil
VNWO)=Kow*VOWO)
Floating oil
VSO) = VSO-l) +VREO) - VEO) - VNWO) - VBUO) - VDU)
We should have the experts' consensus by early next week In the meantime, I suggest
modifying the Excel spreadsheet with these new formulas for testing purposes only. The
Re: Technical Assistance Oil Budget Application
009191
Subject: Re: Technical Assistance Oil Budget Application

From: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 201009:04:44 -0600
cc: "Hoffman, Peter CDR't <Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>, Kevin Gallagher
<kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, "McElroy, Amy LT"
<Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Cheryl Morris <cmorris@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov, Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.ValetteSilver@noaa.gov>
A couple of notes about the tool itself as an update:
- We have an Excel person reviewing the spreadsheet now to see if new
calculations and assumptions provided by NOAA.can be incorporated relatively
simply. Depending on the results of that analysis, we'll either make the changes
today and pass that along for review and use by USCG or incorporate them into the
Web application only.
- We are working on the Web-based application that authorized USCG personnel will
access to enter data and run reports on demand. This will be hosted on USGS
servers and accessed securely with a login and password by personnel designated
by the USCG using only a Web browser. As stated in the project plan, we should
have an initial release for review by Wednesday with the ability to fully release
by the end of the week at the latest.
- We are building in two different roles in the application: l} enter daily
figures and run off printable reports (similar to current dashboard and graphs)
and 2)
ust background figures and assumptions as necessary (e.g., change low
and high discharge rates over a range of dates. These can both be done by the
same people if desired, but we are logically splitting out the roles and
implementing full auditing in the system so that reports will show when any
values were changed and by whom.
Please continue to keep me in the loop on any pertinent discussion of flow rates,
calculations, and assumptions so that we can make sure everything is incorporated
appropriately into the tool. We'll keep you all informed on how everything is
cooking along on this end with the application.
Thank you.
<. (( ----<. (( ----<. ((

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. ( ( ----<. ( ( (<----<. ( ( (<

On Jun 20, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Martha N Garcia wrote:
! Peter,
this team is only providing the tool to help estimate the oil budget.
I The assumptions used are being developed by NOAA. I've cc'ed the NOAA reps on
!this email to help address your questions.
I
!Note that the FRTG has provided a lower and upper estimate re: the flow rate.
tThe suggestion would be to calculate an oil budget using the flow range, ie, a
I:~~=:-:~~-~~~::-~~~~~:----
I Martha N. Garcia, Chief of Staff
of2
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
Reminder: Mass Balance Presentation, June 24th. 1 - 2 pm
009193
Subject: Reminder: Mass Balance Presentation, June 24th, 1 - 2 pm

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 201009:30:51 -0400
To: NIC-HQ-IASG <NIC-HQ-IASG@uscg.mil>, NIC <NIC-HQ-Situation-Unit@uscg.mil>
CC: Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>,
Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>, Swackhammer.J-Troy@epamail.epa.gov
Join us for Dr Victor Labson's presentation on
Mass Balance 101: Oil Budgets, Discharge Rates, and Available Oil
Where: Coast Guard Headquarters, Conf Room 5-0624
When: 1:00 - 2:00 pm

Contact: Martha Garcia, USGS Liaison to the NIC, mgarcia@usgs.gov
Summary: A "mass balance" is a widely used approach to accounting for the total amount of a
material that enters and leaves a system. Mass Balance run in a forward direction starting from a
discharge rate can be used to compute a daily and cumUlative Oil Budget. Run in reverse, Mass
Balance starts with an oil budget and computes a Discharge Rate. The two are the same if all sources
of available oil are accounted for and all losses are quantified.
The daily updates for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill generate an "oil budget." This involves
determining the amount of oil flowing from the riser, then subtracting out what is removed by various
techniques or natural processes. The difference that remains represents oil that is still available on the
surface (or subsurface) and that may impact natural and economic resources in the Gulf.
Some factors are directly measured; others are estimated based on particular assumptions with some
level of uncertainty. Different agencies or organizations are responsible for reporting the various
components used in the calculation.
The overall oil balance estimate can change over time as we refine our knowledge of anyone of the
components in the equation.
The daily and cumulative oil budget estimate differs from the mass balance calculations and report
generated by the FRTG Mass Balance Sub-team, which were based a one-time (May 17, 2010)
estimate of the total amount of surface oil in the Gulf. The surface oil was measured by the NASA
Airporne AVIRIS (Airborne Visiblellnfra-Red Imaging Spectrometer) and the MODIS (MODerateresolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite. This measurement of available oil was used to
back-calculate through a process similar to the oil budget and using similar assumptions to arrive at an
estimate of the minimum average daily flow rate for the preceding period, as described in the May 27 th
FRTG preliminary report.
Reston, VA 20192
1. of 1
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
Fw: Oil Budget Web Tool
009194
Subject: Fw: Oil Budget Web Tool

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:27:18 -0400

Reston, VA 20192
-----Forwarded by Martha N Garcia/BRD/USGS/DOI on 06/22/2010 12:2SPM ----To: Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.ValetteSilver@noaa.gov>
Date: 06/22/2010 12:2SPM
cc: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Kevin
Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>
Subject: Oil Budget Web Tool
Greetings,
We are preparing reviews of the Oil Budget tool and would like to invite your participation in a
WebEx session to go over the system this afternoon at 4:00 (Eastern). We've codified the
formulas and assumptions provided by Bill Lehr as variables in the application that can be
adjusted as necessary based on the results of any ongoing peer review or improvements in the
process. We'd like to get your input on the application and how it functions and make any
adjustments in time to get the USCG started with the application sometime tomorrow.
Here is the information on the meeting this afternoon:
https:!Iusgs.webex.com/usgsli.php?ED=1399280S2&UID=481028437&RT=MiM2
#
We do not antiCipate taking more than an hour on this and probably significantly less
depending on your questions and input. If this time does not work for you, we'd like to
schedule a time at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
<. < < "'''''''''' <. < <"""'''''''<. < <

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
lof2
9/27/20]02:06 PM
Fw: Oil Budget Web Tool
009195
< .( < < <"'''''''''''<.( <""''''''''''< .( <
20f2
9/27/20102:06 PM
"Oil Budget Tool" major decisions and glide path
009198
Subject: "Oil Budget Tool" major decisions and glide path

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:09:09 -0600
To: Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Mark
Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Amy LT McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Bill Lehr
<BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
CC: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Thank you all again for your input today; we got a lot of great direction for the application. I
know I probably missed an email for someone who was on the call today, so please correct
me by forwarding as appropriate and copying me with anyone else who should be in the
loop. Please feel free to also augment this list with anything I missed or provide any
corrections.
Here's a quick rundown of the highlights from our conversation:

- Simplify to two scenarios and title them "Low Flow Rate/Maximum Recovery" and "High
Flow Rate/Minimum Recovery." This is subject to change (and easily done) based on input
from the Coast Guard and/or the NOAA science team.
- Title the application, "Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget."
- Provide the framework for the application to incorporate succinct descriptions, including an
appropriate description of the assumptions/factors, of the calculated elements (Skimmed,
Burned, etc.) in both the online application and printed reports. We will receive the
descriptions through the NOAA "Mass Balance" document on Thursday, but we'll set up the
framework for it now.
.- Provide thorough information in the application's About page to describe the provenance
of this application and an overview of its utility and intended uses. I provided a draft in a
separate email to team members for review and input.
- Explore a stacked bar charting option that would be similar to the somewhat stylized
example from a BP-derived poster (provided previously by Martha Garcia) that was
apparently quite communicative with Adm. Allen and others.
- Other simpler things like using the same y-axis scale on the charts were documented in
the project management system we use with the development team. Anyone is welcome to
look that over and have direct access should you wish.
Here's an overview of the salient parts of our glide path toward release:
- Martha Garcia has requested a briefing time with the Coast Guard tomorrow, June 23, to
walk through the application, get reactions and input like we did today, and work out a few
details about the final operation (e.g., which groups will perform what actions).
- Bill Lehr will facilitate getting us a "near-final" version of the NOAA Mass Balance
document on Thursday, June 24, containing any updates to the formulas and factors along
] of2
9/27/20102:06 PM
.. Oil Budget Tool" major decisions and glide path
009199
with descriptive information (bullets) to be used in the application describing the various
calculations and assumptions.
- We may include a brief overview of the application in a meeting scheduled between Marcia
McNutt and the Coast Guard on Thursday, June 24, at 1:00 (Eastern). Mark 80gge will help
make a determination on whether or not we include this.
- Depending on continued feedback and input from the Coast Guard and other team
members, we are still on track for our target release date on Friday, June 25. Unless there
are any major show stoppers, we can put out a version 1.0 release and then continue
making incremental changes and improvements in coming days and weeks.
<.(<----<.----<.(<
Sky Bristol
2 of2
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
RE: Oil Budget Tool
009200
Subject: RE: Oil Budget Tool

From: "Grawe, William" <William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:57:38 -0500
To: Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mi
cc: Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "Valette-Silver, Nathalie"
<Nathalie.valette-Silver@noaa.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher <kgaliagher@usgs.gov>, Sky
Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Marcia K McNutt
<mcnutt@usgs.gov>, "McElroy, Amy LT' <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, "Kayyem, Juliette"
<juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>, "Ormes, David" <Oavid.T.Ormes@uscg.mil>,
Scott.R.Lundgren@uscg.dhs.gov
Martha Good news .... a webex demo would be great....recommend an afternoon demo... 1have a call at 3:30 to 4
tomorrow otherwise should be free.
Bill
From: mgarcia@usgs.gov [mailto:mgarcia@usgs.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:48 PM

To: Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mii Grawe, William
Cc: Mark Miller - NOAAi Valette-Silver, Nathalie; Kevin T Gallagher; Sky Bristol; Mark K Sogge; Marcia K
McNutt; McElroy, Amy LT
Subject: Oil Budget Tool
The USGS Development Team is finalizing the tool we discussed that will allow the Coast Guard to compile a
daily "oil budget". The Team demoed the tool today with fellow USGS staff and with the NOAA folks that are
providing the scientific calculations and assumptions that drive the tool. Their efforts are impressive and it is
ready to share with appropriate Coast Guard staff for feedback. Let me know your availability and who we
should include in a WebEx demonstration. Ideally, we would like to meet tomorrow or Thursday as our goal is to
give the Coast Guard a product that can go onto operation by the end of the week. Let me know. Thanks
Reston, VA 20192
lofl
fax
mgarcia@usgs.gov
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
Re: Oil Budget Tool
009201
Subject: Re: Oil Budget Tool

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 201022:11:02 "0400
To: William Grawe <William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil>, Baron K Brown
<Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mi>
CC: Mark Miller <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>, Nathalie Valett~Silver <Nathalie.valette"
Silver@noaa.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Sky Bristol
<sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Marcia K McNutt
<mcnutt@usgs.gov>, "McElroy, Amy LT" <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, "Kayyem, Juliette"
<juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>, David Ormes <David.T.Ormes@uscg.mil>, Scott R Lundgren
<Scott.R.Lundgren@uscg.dhs.gov>
Bill, I'll see what I can do to get something arranged around 1. Any suggestions on others to include? Thanks.
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov

From: "Grawe, William" [William. R. Grawe@uscg.mil]
Sent: 06/22/201006:57 PM EST
To: Martha Garcia; <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mi>
Cc: "Mark Miller - NOAA" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; "Valette-Silver, Nathalie" <Nathalie.ValetteSilver@noaa.gov>; Kevin Gallagher; Sky Bristol; Mark Sogge; Marcia McNutt; "McElroy, Amy LT"
<Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>; "Kayyem, Juliette" <juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>; "Ormes, David"
<David.T.Ormes@uscg.mil>; <Scott.R.Lundgren@uscg.dhs.gov>
Martha Good news.... a webex demo would be great.. .. recommend an afternoon demo.. .! have a call at 3:30 to 4
Bill

To: Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mi; Grawe, William
Cc: Mark Miller - NOAA; Valette-Silver, Nathalie; Kevin T Gallagher; Sky Bristol; Mark K 5ogge; Marcia K
10f2
9/27/20102:06 PM
Re: Oil Budget Tool
009202
providing the scientific calculations and assumptions that drive the tool. Their efforts are impressive and it is
Reston, VA 20192
2of2
9/27/20102:06 PM
009203
RE: Oil Budget Tool

From: "Grawe, William" <William. R. Grawe@uscg . mil>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 201021:11:56 -0500
To: Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Baron K Brown <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mi>
CC: Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "Valette-Silver, Nathalie"
<Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Sky
Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Marcia K McNutt
<mcnutt@usgs.gov>, "McElroy, Amy LT" <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, "Kayyem, Juliette"
<juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>, "Ormes, David" <Oavid.T.Ormes@uscg.mil>, Scott R
Lundgren <Scott.R.Lundgren@uscg.dhs.gov>, "Hoffman, Peter CDR"
<Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.rnil>
I added a couple of folks ... probably can invite some from the Situation unit..copied CDR Pete Hoffman who is the
Sit unit Leader. ...

To: Grawe, William; Baron K Brown
Cc: Mark Miller - NOAA; Valette-Silver, Nathalie; Kevin T Gallagheri Sky Bristol; Mark K Sogge; Marcia K
McNutt; McElroy, Amy LTi Kayyem, Juliette; Ormes, David; Scott R Lundgren
Bill, I'll see what I can do to get something arranged around 1. Any suggestions on others to include? Thanks
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov
fax
From: "Grawe, William" [William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil]
Sent: 06/22/201006:57 PM EST
Cc: "Mark Miller - NOAA" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; "Valette-Silver, Nathalie" <NathalieValetteSilver@noaa.gov>; Kevin Gallagher; Sky Bristol; Mark Sogge; Marcia McNutt; "McElroy, Amy LT'
<Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>; "Kayyem, Juliette" <juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>; "Ormes, David"
<David.T.Orrnes@uscg.mil>; <Scott.R.Lundgren@uscg.dhs.gov>
Martha Good news .... a webex demo would be great... .recommend an afternoon demo ... 1 have a call at 3:30 to 4
Bill
lof2
9/27/20102:06 PM
RE: Oil Budget Tool
009204

Cc: Mark Miller - NOAA; Valette-Silver, Nathalie; Kevin T Gallagher; Sky Bristol; Mark K Sogge; Marcia K
providing the scientific calculations and assumptions that drive the tool. Their efforts are impreSSive and it is
Reston, VA 20192
http://biology. usgs. gOY
20f2
gov
9/27/20102:06 PM
009205
Oi I Budget Spreadsheet
Subject: Oil Budget Spreadsheet

From: "Drew. Charity LTJG" <Charity.D.Drew@uscg.mil>
Date: Wed. 23 Jun 2010 07:47:37 0400
To: sbristol@usgs.gov. kernt@usgs.gov. "McElroy, Amy LT" <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller- NOAA
<Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Good morning,
As requested,attached is the most current Oil Budget Spreadsheet.
vir,
LTJG Charity Drew
II
! Content-Description.
Budget Recovery Rates_autofill(2}.xlsx C t t T '

IOil
!
on en - ype.
II Content-Encoding:
lofl
Oil Budget Recovery

Rates_autofill(2).xlsx
application/vnd.openxmlformats.
o.fficed.oc.ume.nt..s p. read. sh.eet.m.I.sheet I
base64..
..
9/27/20102:06 PM
009206
Date
Discharge
Discharge
Surface Dispersants
Subsurface Dispersants
Low Estimate
High Estimate
(gallons)
(gallons)
10-Jun
35000
60000
1366
11-Jun
35000
60000
14305
9193
12-Jun
35000
60000
10356
4371
13-Jun
35000
60000
36012
9596
14-Jun
35000
60000
12703
96891
lS-Jun
35000
60000
2768
11578
10279
16-Jun
35000
60000
13593
91521
17-Jun
35000
60000
12423
5962
18-Jun
35000
60000
15711
7642
19-Jun
35000
60000
8380
17780
20-Jun
35000
60000
19576
1369S
21-Jun
22-Jun
23-Jun
24-Jun
2S-Jun
26-Jun
27-Jun
28-Jun
29-Jun
30-Jun
1-Jul
2-Jul
3-Jul
4-Jul
S-Jul
-'
6-Jul
7-Jul
8-Jul
9-Jul
10-Jul
11-Jul
12-Jul
13-Jul
14-Jul
lS-Jul
16-Jul
17-Jul
18-Jul
19-Jul
20-Jul
21-Jul
22-Jul
009207
23-Jul
24-Jul
2S-Jul
26-Jul
27-Jul
28-Jul
29-Jul
30-Jul
31-jul
l-Aug
2-Aug
3-Aug
4-Aug
S-Aug
009208
Oily Water
Collected (bbls)
9650
18510
14459
12383
6083
11891
16995
9185
16436
12713
11335
Oil Burned
Oil Collected
(bbls)
via RITT/TopHat (bbls)
0
0
3850
7550
16600
43001
0
1000
0
25354
0
15402
15554
15039
15208
15421
10448
18227
25295
24552
21041!
23290i
I
009209
009210
OIL BUDGET (Best Estimate) EXECUTIVE SUMI
Last Update:
638,172
Amount Available for Recovery
.-.-.--.-.'-'.-.--.-.'-.'-".-.-..
Skimmed
Burned
. 1,056,123
-.~.--
...
".~.-.--".-
55 /768
150/366
Dispersed Chemical
(Surface &Subsurface)
69,223
812342
1 bbl 42 gals
Data Input Sheet Remaining #
Difference
Percent Error
31575
4.04%
..-
009211
MARY - LOW ESTIMATE
9/27/2010
10% of oily water collected is oil

Surface: oil dispersed = dispersant X3

Surfac:e:dispersantirnpacts 25%.oftreatable oir
Subsurface: oil dispersed =dispersantX 5
009212
OIL BUDGET (Best Estimate) EXECUTIVE SI
Last Update:
--::- .-
"t~:~::::;':,:',;:
-._-- '- -'-' -
',::. '
.f::~:"':;< :"<':':';:,:\~':<:-:.'~:_ :" "; -(
Amount Available forRecov~ry .
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~~-.
/,',-
"'"
::',_, _ \.
J,;.<,'" :,'.'
i,~8~,i~i
........ -. '- .--
",,~-,.
Skimmed
55,768
Burned
150,366
Dispersed Chemical
(Surface & Subsurface)
69,223
- '.
009213
UMMARY - HIGH ESTIMATE
9/27/2010
10%byvolume of surfaceojl
30% per volume of available surface oil
10% of oily water collected is oil

Surface: oil dispersed = dispersant X 3

Surface: dispersant impacts 25% of treatablepil
Subsurface:<oil. dispersed dispersant XS
009214
009215
"'C:uriliil~ttV;
Remaini.,g(at
tneendtjrthe op
day}
009216
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
31-May-l0
I-Jun-l0
2-Jun-l0
3-Jun-l0
4-Jun-l0
5-Jun-l0
6-Jun-l0
7-Jun-l0
8-Jun-l0
9-Jun-10
10-Jun-l0
ll-Jun-l0
12-Jun-10
13-Jun-10
14-Jun-l0
15-Jun-10
16-Jun-10
17-Jun-10
18-Jun-10
19-Jun-10
20-Jun-10
21-Jun-10
22-Jun-10
23-Jun-10
24-Jun-10
25-Jun-10
26-Jun-l0
27-Jun-10
28-Jun-10
29-Jun-10
30-Jun-10
I-Jul-10
2-Jul-10
3-Jul-10
4-Jul-10
5-Jul-10
6-Jul-10
7-Jul-10
8-Jul-10
9-Jul-10
10-Jul-10
ll-Jul-10
12-Jul-10
13-Jul-10
14-Jul-10
15-Jul-10
16-Jul-10
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
60000
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
0
2520000
2580000
2640000
2700000
2760000
2820000
2880000
2940000
3000000
3060000
3120000
3180000
3240000
3300000
3360000
3420000
3480000
3540000
3600000
3660000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
1150642
1179029
1205176
1230230
1261559
1321553
1356576
1396708
1436762
1482658
1522244
1563006
1606334
1654138
1710144
1749912
1792913
1842244
1890811
1961793
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
1369358
1400971
1434824
1469770
1498441
1498447
1523424
1543292
1563238
1577342
1597756
1616994
1633666
1645862
1649856
1670088
1687087
1697756
1709189
1698207
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
009217
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108"
109
110
111
17-Jul-10
18-Jut-l0
19-Jul-l0
20-Jut-10
21-Jul-10
22-Jul-l0
23-Jul-l0
24-Jul-l0
25-Jul-l0
26-Jut-l0
27-Jul-10
28-Jul-l0
29-Jul-l0
30-Jul-10
31-Jul-10
l-Aug-l0
2-Aug-l0
3-Aug-l0
4-Aug-l0
5-Aug-l0
6-Aug-l0
7-Aug-l0
8-Aug-l0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
3720000
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
2009215
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
1710785
009218
009219
009220
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651 .
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651
566651
"566651
566651
566651
566651
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
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O.
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
55768
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
150366
009221
009222
17538
17531
17733
17634
17502
17245
17513
17496
17493
17553
17633
17672
17844
17657
17654
17587
17673
17787
17727
17365
17511
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
0
751962
769493
787226
804861
822363
839608
857121
874617
892110
909662
927295
944967
962811
980468
998122
1015709
1033382
1051169
1068896
1086261
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
5846
5844
5911
5878
5226
4699
4726
4348
4330
4269
4337
4335
4444
4365
4343
4817
4068
3400
3454
3684
3508
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
0
248806
254650
260561
266439
271665
276364
281090
285438
289768
294037
298375
302710
307154
311519
315861
320679
324747
328147
331601
335285
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
1750
1562
949
1330
1903
2519
1624
1871
1840
1528
1248
1350
705
1785
1380
1428
1332
932
1190
2266
1980
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
0
38500
40062
41011
42341
44244
46763
48387
50258
52098
53626
54874
56224
56929
58715
60095
61523
62855
63786
64977
67243
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
11686
0
3375
6200
13701
125
0
10744
8324
2100
1366
14305
10356
36012
12703
2768
13593
12423
15711
8380
19576
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
0
I
i
i
009223
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
1103772
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
338793
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
69223
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
009224
lisD'ersan1:s1 Total Dispersants

Used
(cumulative)(gal)
009225
208.6785714
0
60.26785714
110.7142857
244.6607143
2.232142857
0
191.8571429
148.6428571
37.5
24.39285714
255.4464286
. 184.9285714
643.0714286
226.8392857
49.42857143
242.7321429
221.8392857
280.5535714
149.6428571
349.5714286
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
0
12948
13122
7465
10241
13931
21143
13640
14105
14207
12521
10279
9193
4371
9596
9689
11578
9152
5962
7642
17780
13695
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
0
1172893
23498
14727
45608
22392
14346
22745
18385
23353
26160
33271
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
0
1172893
1196391
1211118
1256726
1279118
1293464
1316209
1334594
1357947
1384107
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
009226
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
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1417378
14-17378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
1417378
I
i
i
009227
2500000
~-------------------------------------------------------------
2000000
+--------------------------------------------------------------
1500000
+------------------------------------------------------------
! 1000000 +.----------------------------------------------------------~~
500000
+-------------------------~~~------------------~._-=-----
009228
009229
Bolded Text in Spreadsheet Body indicate Best Estimate. No definitive information source available
Available for Recovery Amounts Discharged Amount - Amount Naturally Dispersed &. Evaporated
Amount Recovered Amount Recovered via RITT, Skimmed, Chemically Dispersed, Burned. DOES NC
Quantities of Oil Evaporated and Naturally Dispersed are dependent on the Discharge Amount and WI
,'J..' c. or.'m'.a
..a~n"~r;;,.iu;.'t".'cie;<-.".?i
....m.'. .'~?. '.ff...,. . U;.i\eti".~p,;~.';""
....'S\i"'.;)~..t.'
.'.. .
''''>;,cc,.'.';.
'.
I~l-_ ._I"l~,
j~ . _ '~;:;'~"~,~~_~,J:>D
_;~ I~!=,~.
" ...~:. : '-<1~ii~i~z;:;:~~~;c:i~-i;:
'.'n'
..
e.
;1nf9fm~ti~Jj1~~~~;.Hourna:.Ae~;~14DJ~pe~J9n\~oi'ks~~tal))a",$u~~~~"~iqllculafipl'l~stn'NI~()lJfBl
l~~it~ifC~~tl~~~~JPi1yiril~I{'UC!i";~rI1.1Sl;~f"I;'roaulM*tt.I'I~~,IJQt;d~
lrif()rmatfonSOUrCf:hIANT~ASlideO~ck
009230
)1 include evaporated or naturallv dispersed oil

ere determined using the NIC Oil Budget formulas
j~ttt~f()I'ffl'Ula$,:j\i,;j~~;\~}'~'t
. . . <;:,~~ >i~~];i::M~i;!t,l':~ ';~~r:q
. ,,,t, .
"i;
;t:;;"~;~~. ;~"l"/~;::; 0~'~'f
}~~ril1tfl~~~.i1!e~fcfflCft\wa$.~~~~~~t~crePPrt'(Ji~~~.j6(1~,edally~JU~~: .:7~[,'~'~~~'.\
009231
.~.I!ate~U_B8LSper~
Average Dally Recovery Rates:
With Respect to Daily Amount Available- for Recowty:
With Retped to Cumulative Amount Availab1e (or Rec.overy:
With Respect to Daily Discharge Amount:

With Roped to Cumulative OIscharBe Amount:
Aventp OtllySkfmmff1l Rate (_,abut cumulatIve dlJth.1rpd)
Avent,. DallySkfmmrnl Rate (_pCnd: wmut.tfve avan.. ble)
Amount of 011 Rt!!malnfJII~
Overall Recowry Amounts:

16.77"0.74%
16.19')6
Q.4411
Overall Reoovety Amount

Overall A!c:overy Amount per Nit Oil6udget:
Overall Skimm1na Amount per NIC 01l8udlet:
(N,",II Skfmmlna 4mount per.lI sources:
10.18%
11.23%
3.55%
1.28%
0.11%
0.18%
EmplriQJ Days to full recovery after source secured/controlled:
824227
108
Empirical Days to futl recovery .fter-source secuted/amtrolled;
141
NOTE: Quantity 011 Skimmed has a 9665 BBldlfference between NIC 011 Budget Hs a. of May 26, 2010
NOTE: Recovery Rates lndude the quantify of 011 recovered via the RIlT, Skimming.
Dlscharse Rate" 20000 BBLs I Day
Average Dally Recovery Rates:
Overall Recovery Rales:
With Respect to Dally Amount Ayallable for Reco ....ery:
16.77%
With Respect to C'Umu11t1~ Am(lunt Available for Recovery.

With Respect to Oaily Oischarle Amount:
With Respm to CumufaUve OImal811! Amount:
Average Dally Skbnmlns Flate (alalns! cumulative disdiafged,
Averqe Oally Sklmmlnl f\ate (acalnst cumulative available)
0.74%
10.19%
0.44"
0.11"
OVerall Recovery Ra'e

10"!'ftc on Budget Tota1 Recove~d IS 149380
Overall Retovery Rate per HIC Oil 11"
Overail" Skimming Rate (WRT Cu 2"
overall1. Sldmmln, Rate (WRTCu 4%
Nle 8udsel SklmmlJ1l 47248

(May 2.' tANT 27 "'13.55%
5.89%
bbls
WRT Ctunulative Total
WRr Cumulative Available
U8"
009232
oil budget review
009233
Subject: oil budget review

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 201008:51:30 -0400
To: Bill. Lehr@noaa.gov
CC: Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Good Morning,
Can you please provide me the list of independent reviewers who have evaluated
the oil budget inputs? ADM Allen mentioned that this is something that should be
done, and I wanted to show that it was already being done.
Thanks for your foresight!
Very Respectfully,
Amy'McElroy, LT
202-372-1720
1 of 1
9/27/20102:06 PM
009234
Demonstration of Oil Budget Tool - Today at 1:00
Subject: Demonstration of Oil Budget Tool - Today at 1:00

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 201008:59:08 -0400
To: "Grawe,William" <William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil>, "Hoffman,Peter CDR"
<Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>, "Brown,Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>
CC: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.valette.Silver@noaa.gov>, amy.mcelroy@uscg.mil, Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>,
Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Marcia K
McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>, Catherine Cesnik <Catherine_Cesnik@ios.doi.gov>
The USGS Development Team is finalizing a tool we that will allow the Coast Guard to compile a daily "oil
budget", The Tool will be demoed today at CG HQ in Conf Room 5-1331 at 1:00 pm.
We look forward to getting your input to finalze the tool use by the CG.
Call me with any questions. Thanks

Reston, VA 20192
http://biology.usgs.qov
fax
mgarcia@usgs.gov
-----William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil wrote: -----
To: "Martha Garcia" <mgarcia@usgs.gov>

Sent by: William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil
Date: 06/23/2010 06:45AM
cc: "Hoffman, Peter CDR" <Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>, "Brown, Baron CDR"
<Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>
Martha ... Lance has transferred ouL.CDR Pete Hoffman now fills that role with all the joy that comes with :)
Pete... Martha is the FRTG rep in the IASG room .... she is the link to Dr. McNutt and her team and provides a
daily oil budget input to the SITUNIT reports .. " I would recommend you and some of your staff participate in
the WEBEX today on the oil budget. Will mention at the 7:30 meeting.
Bill
lof3
9/27/20102:06 PM
Demonstration ofOi) Budget Tool - Today at 1:00
009235
Sent: Wednesday, June 23,20106:43 AM

To: Grawe, William
Bill, any value having Lance Lindgren as part of the discussion? He worked closely with the
previous spreadsheet before he was reassigned and knew the frustrations more than others.
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov

Sent: 06/22/2010 09: 11 PM EST
To: Martha Garcia; "Baron K Brown" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mi>

Cc:: "Mark Miller - NOAA" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>i "Valette-Silver, Nathalie"
<Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>i Kevin Gallagheri Sky Bristol; Mark Sogge; Marcia
McNutt; "McElroy, Amy LT' <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>i "Kayyem, Juliette"
<juliette.kayyem@dhs.goV>i "Ormes, David" <Oavid.T.Ormes@uscg.mil>i "Scott R Lundgren"
<Scott.R.Lundgren@uscg.dhs.goV>i "Hoffman, Peter CDR" <Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>
Subjec:t: RE: Oil Budget Tool
I added a couple of folks ... probably can invite some from the Situation unit..copied CDR Pete Hoffman who is
the Sit unit Leader....

To: Grawe, William; Baron K Brown
Cc:: Mark Miller - NOAA; Valette-Silver, Nathalie; Kevin T Gallagher; Sky Bristol; Mark K Sogge; Marcia K
McNutti McElroy, Amy LTi Kayyem, Juliette; Ormes, David; Scott R Lundgren
Bill, I'll see what I can do to get something arranged around 1. Any suggestions on others to
include? Thanks
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov
fax
20f3
9/27/20]02:06 PM
Demonstration of Oil Budget Tool- Today at 1:00
009236
Sent: 06/22/2010 06:57 PM EST

Cc: "Mark Miller - NOAA" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; "Valette-Silver, Nathalie"
<Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>; Kevin Gallagher; Sky Bristol; Mark Sogge; Marcia
McNutt; "McElroy, Amy LT" <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>; "Kayyem, Juliette"
<juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>; "Ormes, David" <David.T.Ormes@uscg.mil>;
<Scott. R. Lu ndgren@uscg.dhs.gov>
Martha Good news.... a webex demo would be great.. .. recommend an afternoon demo ... 1have a call at 3:30 to 4
Bill
Cc: Mark Miller - NOAA; Valette-Silverl Nathalie; Kevin T Gallagher; Sky Bristol; Mark K Sogge; Marcia K
The USGS Development Team is finalizing the tool we discussed that will allow the Coast Guard
to compile a daily "oil budget". The Team demoed the tool today with fellow USGS staff and
with the NOAA folks that are providing the scientific calculations and assumptions that drive
the tool. Their efforts are impressive and it is ready to share with appropriate Coast Guard
staff for feedback. Let me know your availability and who we should include in a WebEx
demonstration. Ideally, we would like to meet tomorrow or Thursday as our goal is to give the
Coast Guard a product that can go onto operation by the end of the week. Let me know.
Thanks
Martha N. GarCia, Chief of Staff
Reston, VA 20192
30f3
gov
9/27/20102:06 PM
009237
Re: oil budget review
Subject: Re: oil budget review

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 201006:44:51 -0700
To: "McElroy, Amy LT' <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>
CC: Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>
Timeline for oil budget plan
June 16 - strawman document listing suggested approach sent to experts for
comments
As of June 23, the response is as follows:
expert organization
responded?
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
yes
Al Allan
SpilTec yes
Ian Buist
S.L. Ross
no
James Payne
Payne Env.
no
Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
yes
Ed Overton
LSU
yes
Merv Fingas
retired yes
Ali Khelifa
Env. Canada
yes
Robert Jones
NOAA
yes
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
yes
Victoria Broje Shell
no
Al Venosa
EPA
no
Per Daling
SINTEF no
David Usher
retired yes
Peter Carragher BP
yes
June 24 - Draft plan, , incorporating some of the suggestion from the experts
sent to NIC and back to experts for further comment. Revised as necessary until
the spill is done.
As a response tool, it is important that Admiral Allen understand that we will
continue to revise and improve it as more data, expert advice and analysis
becomes available.
Original Message
From: "McElroy, Amy LT" <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:53 am
Subject: oil budget review
To: Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov
Cc: Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
I Good Morning,
II Can
I!
I
you please provide me the list of independent reviewers who have

evaluated the oil budget inputs? ADM Allen mentioned that this is
something that should be done, and I wanted to show that it was
already being done.
I Thanks
for your foresight!
Very Respectfully,
Amy McElroy, LT
NIC0
lof2
9/27/20102:06 PM
Re: oil budget review
2of2
009238
9/27/20102:06 PM
Re: Oil Budget tool About page
009239
Subject: Re: Oil Budget tool About page

From: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 201008:02:30 -0700
To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
CC: Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Martha Garcia
<mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Good material. Here are some suggested edits.

Mark
Mark Sogge
Deputy Chair, NIC Flow Rate Technical Group
Chief of Staff, USGS Western Region
2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, p.z 86001
Cell: 928-606-1286; FAX: 928-556-7266
mark_sogge@usgs.gov
From:
To:
Dale:
Subject:
Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>

Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs,gov>, Bill Lehr <bin,lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miler <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
06/22/201004:41 PM
Oil Budget tool About page
Thank you again for all the great feedback today. I've attached the draft About page we are incorporating into the Web
application. We discussed some input to this page from you all to help clarify the intent and range of functionality
in the application. Please feel free to modify this document at will, adding or modifying sections as you see fit.
This text will be incorporated into an "About" link from the application itself and incorporated into every printed
report so we try to keep all the dots connected throughout.
We could set up some fancy document management thing for this, but in the interest of time, please use track changes
in Word if you can and send back via email.
In this same vein, we will be looking for some succinct, operational-level bullets that describe the calculations
being made and their underlying assumptions from the NOAA Mass Balance document (sometime Thursday). We'll incorporate
these into the application and into the printable reports so they are easily referenced. The development team is
setting up the framework for this now, and we'll get the information from the NOAA document when we receive that on
Thursday.
I'll send out a summary with all the other dynamics we discussed, but I wanted to get this artifact to you all
separately for your review and input.
Thank you.
[attachment "About+the+Oil+Budget+Tool (1) .doc" deleted by Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOIJ
<. ----<. (----<. (

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<.
1 of2
(----<. ((----<. (
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
Re: Oil Budget tool About page
009240
About+the+Oil+Budget+Tool (1) MKS comments.doc Content-Type:

application/ms-word
20f2
9/27/20102:06 PM
009241
About the OJ) Budget Tool

The Oil Budget Web application provides a mechanism for entering and tracking
daily summary data used by the U.S. Coast Guard to report on the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill response for oil cleaFlHp aFld dispersion. The tool produces an
executive summary page showing daily totals and cumulative values for the amount
of oil spilled, various oil recovery actions (skimming, burning, chemical dispersant
use, etc.) and oil dynamics (evaporation, natural dispersal, etc.). _Authorized users
can enter and maintain daily values for total oil collected and other variables, and
another group of users has the ability to manage the actual formulas and
background assumptions that factor into the calculations.
The Oil Budget Web tool was built by the U.S. Geological Survey in June 2010 at the
request of the U.S. Coast Guard. based on an Excel template originally provided by
the Coast Guard. The formulas and factors that make up the oil budget calculation;
were provided with a seience team from Qj[.the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration providing tHe foFmtllas afld factoFs that maI.e Hp the oil bHdget
calcl:llatiofl.
Credits
LTOg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original application concept and Excel spreadsheet
Bill Lehr (NOM) - Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Technical
advisors
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern(USGS) - Project vision and management
!The applicationdeye!opmentwas conducted.,asa'rapid;response ejfort'Withthe

sponsorshipofthf(USGSJohn Wesley PowellCenterforArtalysis aad Synthesis
(htt.pit!wwellcenter,ysgs,gov/) and the supporto!itsdirectors,Dr.lillBaroirandDr.
Martin; Goldhaber.!, ____ ..... _...... _. ____ .. __ .. ., ...... _... _._ .... ____ ... ., ...... _., ______ .. ___ .,.,. ....... _.... __ .
Isupp()i:tj ........ _._ ...............................................'.. _............... _............ __ ..................

Support for the application is provided through the USGS Service Desk and the
myUSGS operational team:
Problems logging in - 703-648-HELP
Using the application - myusgs@usgs.gov
References
CommentIMKSl]: J wi s Itouwmof the
Powell Center link Need ~-make $U~thatlfthel

Powell Cent~rhlgbllgllu thlus tltIe of Its ' '.... .. . .1
acc:UmpllSluilents; It Ii dear about the tl!c!molqgy ;i
'" " roIe(USGSJ~tbe ieiI!nCe1'OIe(NOM}i. " '
"~menti(MKs21:DOy",j;wme;omdany . ;;"'J
.'spe<:i
'
regard1ri(
. oto contaa'<.- "",1

.
nlstril!:ors? -.1
009242
Oil Budget Cumulative and Daily Reporting Application - project overview (PDF
link)
Mass Balance (ICS 209) for the Deepwater Horizon Spill (PDF link)
Users and Groups for Oil Budget Tool
009247
Subject: Users and Groups for Oil Budget Tool

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:05:36 -0600
To: CDR Peter Hoffman <Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller
CC: Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
As discussed on the call today, we need to get the list of users who will access
the various parts of the application.
1} Readers (View executive summary and daily values and print reports.)
2) Authors (also have reader rights; Enter daily values and annotations.)
3) Managers (also have reader and author rights; Modify global variables,
including discharge rates over date ranges, and mathematical formulas that
perform the calculations.)
On no. 3, my opinion from the discussion today about NOAA's role in scientific
support for the incident, is that this group should be comprised of NOAA and
Coast Guard users who will interface with that scientific support to determine
any modifications to the global variables over time. This seems like a relatively
sensitive role where changes should be made with appropriate scientific rigor and
peer review.
Due to Federal government security requirements, adding new users to the system
is a high-level administrative function. We recognize that personnel will rotate
into these roles over the duration of the incident, and we are set up to respond
within a couple hours during core business hours (see below) to any new user
requests. We will also provide some monitoring of a special email box,
myusgs@usgs.gov, for any requests that come in outside those hours.
Requests need to come from someone we trust to determine access rights. From what
I've heard from you all, I think that means one of the following, but please
suggest an alternative arrangement if necessary.
- Coast Guard CO of the Situation Unit (currently CDR Hoffman)
- Primary point of contact for NOAA scientific support (currently Mark Miller?)
- USGS liaison to the NrC (currently Martha Garcia)
When making new user requests, the following information needs to be provided:
- The fact that you are making the request for the Deepwater Horizon oil budget
tool
- The name and role of the requestor (according to the above)
- Full names and email addresses of users to be added AND/OR any users to be
removed from access
The roles (readers, authors, managers) for each of the users to be added AND/OR
role assignments to be changed
After the initial launch of the application, you can make requests via one of the
following methods:
- Telephone (0700-1900 Eastern - Monday through Friday) - 703-648-HELP
- Email (anytime but potentially slower response) - servicedesk@usgs.gov AND
myusgs@usgs.gov
To get started in the initial launch, we need full names and email addresses for
the following:
1) List of users who should be given access to the beta application for testing
and pre-launch feedback. We will grant full access rights to these individuals so
lof2
, 9/27/20102:06 PM
Users and Groups for Oil Budget Tool
009248
they can look over the entire application.

2) List of users who will fall into the three, roles described above when we go
live with the application late Thursday or early Friday.
Note: If you end up being at all worried about access controls and changing
personnel, we can get' a little more "hard core" on the process such that we
require someone like the official USGS liaison to the NIC as a gatekeeper who
specifies the authorized "new user authorization" contacts. This would be
complete with either a call-back process or another means of electronic
verification. I just don't want to overwhelm you all with requirements.
<. ( ( ----<. ( ( (<----<. ( (

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office:
<. ( ( ----<. ( ( (<----<. ( (
20f2
9/27/20102:06 PM
009249
Fw: From: Steve Murawsld <Steve.Mmawski@noaa.gov>Onepager ...
Subject: Fw: From: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>One pager of AOML To:

Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>, Ryan. Smithcruise
From: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:26:00 -0400
To: "'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: "'shelby.walker@noaa.gov'" <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>, "'David. Kennedy@noaa.gov'"
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'dave.westerholm@noaa.gov'"
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, "'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'" <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>,
"'Pamela. Tosch ik@noaa.gov'" <Pamela. Toschik@noaa.gov> ,"'james. turner@noaa.gov'"
<James. Turner@noaa.gov>
Fyi
Original Message ----From: Michelle.Wood@noaa.gov <Michelle.Wood@noaa.gov>
To: Gustavo.Goni <Gustavo.Goni@noaa.gov>
Cc: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; James Turner
<James,Turner@noaa.gov>; Philip M Kenul <Philip.M.Kenul@noaa.gov>:
Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>; Craig.Mclean@noaa.gov
<Craig.Mclean@noaa.gov>i Ryan H Smith <Ryan.Smith@noaa.gov>; Molly Baringer
<Molly.Baringer@noaa.gov>; _OMAO MOA CO Nancy Foster <CO.Nancy.Foster@noaa.gov>i
Karl Mangels <Karl.Mangels@noaa.gov>: Keith W Roberts <Keith.W.Roberts@noaa.gov>i
Mike Devany <Mike.Devany@noaa.gov>i Wendy Bradfield-Smith <Wendy. BradfieldSmith@noaa.gov>; John Potts <John.Potts@noaa.gov>: Todd C Stiles
<Todd.C.Stiles@noaa.gov>
Sent: Wed Jun 23 12:27:54 2010
Subject: Re: From: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>One pager o,f AOML To:
Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>, Ryan Smithcruise
Hello All - Sorry to be out of the loop (sic) for the last 12 hours, but I'm
hooked up online now and thank Gustavo for following through on everything since
we talked last night. I understand that I am to be completing a budget and
finding out about oil measurement, and that Gustavo will be leading the
one-pager/State Dept. interactions with Steve.
Please let me know if events have changed this basic plan.
Michelle
----- Original Message ----From: "Gustavo.Gonil! <Gustavo.Goni@noaa.gov>

Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:17 am
Subject: Re: From: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.qov>One pager of AOML To:
Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa~gov>, Ryan Smithcruise
!, Hello
Steve, et aI,
I The
countries we are looking clearance for are Bahamas,

! Cuba, and Mexico.
i
I
i
The text in the cruise plan now reflects this.
Gustavo
I On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Steve Murawski wrote:
I
lof4
9/27/20102:06 PM
009250
Fw: From: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>Onepager ...

,
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:58:55 -0400

From: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>
'. To: Gustavo.Goni <Gustavo.Goni@noaa.gov>, James Turner
<James.Turner@noaa.gov Cc: Philip M Kenul
<Philip.M.Kenul@noaa.gov>, Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov,
Craig.Mclean@noaa.gov,MichelleWood <Michelle.Wood@noaa.gov>,
i
Ryan H Smith <Ryan.Smith@noaa.gov>,
Molly Baringer <Mo1ly.Baringer@noaa.gov>,
'.
_ OMAO MOA CO Nancy Foster <CO. Nancy. Foster@noaa. gov>,
Karl Mangels <Karl.Mangels@noaa.gov>,
Keith W Roberts <Keith.W.Roberts@noaa.gov>,
Mike Devany <Mike.Devany@noaa.gov>,
"
Wendy Bradfield-Smith <Wendy.Bradfield-Smith@noaa.gov>,
John Potts <John.Potts@noaa.gov>, Todd C Stiles
! <Todd.C.Stiles@noaa.gov Subject: Re: From: Steve Murawski
It I<Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>One pager of AOML
To: Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>, Ryan Smithcruise
IIII'
Iil
II
I i make
II
II
!
shre you send it to James Turner as well
I!, !
.J Gustavo. Goni wrote:

Hello,
I
I
I!
I
j1
I understand that the N. Foster will be arriving in Miami

on Monday. We will need one full day to load the ship, and our
estimate is to depart early on Wednesday.
The original cruise plan called for a three week cruise, with
end ports in Pascagoula and Miami. However, this will be modify
! depending on time constraints and country clearances. The nonMiami
end port will depend on where the deep-coral cruise will
\ begin from.
tj
II, !
!I
I will send the new map and corrected one pager in a moment.
II
J
II1i
,,\
.
II On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Philip M Kenul wrote:
'\
!
I!
,11
Gustavo
!I
II'
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:45:39 -0400

From:
M Kenul <Philip.M.Kenul@noaa.gov>
Cc: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>,
Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov, >
Wood <Michelle.Wood@noaa.gov>,
Craig.Mclean@noaa.gov, Michelle
II
I
II

Molly Baringer <Molly.Baringer@noaa.gov>,
OMAO MOA CO Nancy Foster <CO.Nancy.Foster@noaa.gov>,
Karl Mangels <Karl.Mangels@noaa.gov>,
Keith W Roberts <Keith.W.Roberts@noaa.gov>,
Mike Devany <Mike.Devany@noaa.gov>,
Wendy Bradfield-Smith <Wendy.Bradfield-Smith@noaa.gov>,
John Potts <John.Potts@noaa.gov>, Todd C Stiles
. <Todd.C.Stiles@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: From: Steve Murawski
I <tteve.MurawSki@noaa.
it
ov>One pager
of AOML
"
20f4
9/27/20102:06 PM
009251
Fw: From: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>One pager ...
To: Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>, Ryan Smitncruise

GG: Please fwd up dates to those I've added to distribution
above.
!
I
I
>
Gustavo.Goni wrote:
Hello Steve,
My apologies for the confusion. This is the map that
we originally used for the proposal. We will correct it
now and send the new version back to you for consistancy
with what we will now be doing.
Thank you,
Gustavo
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Steve Murawski wrote:
II
I
!
!
,!
I
I
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:32:21 -0400

Cc: Philip.M.Kenul@noaa.gov, Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov, >
Craig.Mclean@noaa.aov,
Michelle Wood <Michelle.Wood@noaa.gov>,
Molly Baringer <Molly.Baringer@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: From: Steve Murawski
!I ,<Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>One
II Ii
i!
"
I~mithcruise
II
II '".
> > > >
Gustavo
Why do you have this cruise running out of Pascagoula
Ito
Miami?
My >
impression is that we'd run it in reverse
lwith the NF
,Ii
I' '
! Ii l
i.~
II ,.
. i
of AOML
To: Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>, Ryan
arriving in > Miami on the 26th.

-Steve
Gustavo.Goni wrote:
Hello,
the attachment contains a one page description of
I
~
,,
~
~
~
:II
,, ItI
III
I
I ~~e
t i-
Ii
II!
AOML
cruise
with proposed cruise track overlaid over surface
currents > > > >

the cruise) and
(conditions may be different by the time of
> >
lines
denoting the territorial waters.
30f4
9/27/20102:06 PM
009252
Fw: From: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>One pager ...
Please let me know i f you have any question.,

Thank you,
Gustavo Goni
!I
1--Dr.
Gustavo Jorge Goni

Director
Physical Oceanography Division
,Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory
" National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
recommendations, the contents of this

[message are mine personally and do not necessarily reflect any
1positionof the U. S. Government or of the National Oceanic and
!AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA).
4of4
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
Re: NICNOAA Daily Report 6/23/2010 -- addendum
009253
Subject: Re: NIC NOAA Daily Report 6/23/2010 -- addendum

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:43:33 -0400
CC: Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Timothy Gallagher
<timothy.gallagher@noaa.gov>, Ken Barton <Ken.Barton@noaa.gov>, Richard R Wingrove
<Richard.R.Wingrove@noaa.gov>, Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.ValetteSilver@noaa.gov>, Jason Rolfe <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>, Michelle A Johnston
<Michelle.A.Johnston@noaa.gov>, John Wagner <John. Wagner@noaa.gov>, Sherry
Lippiatt <Sherry.Lippiatt@noaa.gov>, Micah Wengren <Micah.Wengren@noaa.gov>, Neal
Parry <NeaI.Parry@noaa.gov>, Brian Pawlak <Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>, John Oliver
<John.Oliver@noaa.gov>
Sorry for the tardiness, just got out of the second item below.
- USCG and NOAA staff participated in the mid-week Gulf Outreach
Coordination Call. The following briefing topics are planned for
Friday afternobn's call with the public: general spill response
activities/status, severe weather preparedness and IATAP [USCG/FEMA]i
deepwater drilling moratorium/appeals [MMS]; dispersants [EPA]; sea
turtle/in situ burns/nesting season impacts [DOl/NOAA].
- HHS and NOAA staff participated by phone in an FDA/NMFS meeting held
in New Orleans on the seafood safety and fishery re-opening protocols.
Gulf state fishery and health agency directors and other state
representatives discussed status of personnel training, laboratory
capabilties and overall preparedness to begin testing seafood samples
to gauge contamination. Follow-up calls are planned on the technical
level to refine the testing protocol. Current estimates range from 4-6
weeks before testing resources are fully staged.
Original Message ----From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:01 pm
Subject: NIC NOAA Daily Report 6/23/2010
f 1. Held a discussion with USCG, NOAA Communications, and OR&R on

the
!discrepancy
in reported shoreline impact numbers for LA. Because
I
! of the
complexity of measuring marsh "shoreline" apparently a simplified
I linear
measurement was developed at Area that was quite different to the
distances reported by the LA SCAT teams. Another meeting is being
, put
together to get the Houma SSC and SCAT leader connected into the
new
i reporting method.
i
II
.I
It2.
I
I!
Participated in a demonstration by USGS of the beta Oil Budget
,web
l.
~alculator to the CG. Provided functionality and usability
feedback.
Goal is that the input from Bill Lehr's team will be finalized
tomorrow
morning and the USGS will provide Marcia McNutt with an initial
implementation by Friday ..
lof2
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
Re: NIC NOAA Daily Report 6/23/2010 -- addendum
2of2
009254
9/27/20102:06 PM
Oil Droplet Size
009255
Subject: Oil Droplet Size

From: Nathalie.valette-Silver@noaa.gov
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:50:56 -0400
CC: William.Conner@noaa.gov, MichaeI.Uhart@noaa.gov
Mark and Bill: I think that this is an important cODnection and that this could
help in the modeling and may be also in the oil budget. THanks, Nathalie
Subject: Oil Droplet Size

From: Michael Uhart <MichaeI.Uhart@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:15:14 -0400
To: DWH Science Box <DWH.Science.Box@noaa.gov>, _OAf' DWH Science Team
<oar.dwh.science.team@noaa.gov>
All,
Bob Hallberg at GFDL is working with Debbie Payton on a long-range projection of
near-surface and interior ocean plumes of oil using an existing global ocean climate model.
One piece of information is critical for estimating how much oil will be dissolved in the water
column before reaching the surface, the initial probability distribution function of oil droplet
radii at the top of the methane plume at DWH MC252. There is no theory for the PDF. Is
anybody aware of any observations that can be used to construct the PDF?
Mike
Content-Type:
message/rfc822
Oil Droplet Size.eml C
E
d"
7b't
ontent- nco mg: I
I of 1
9/27/20]02:06 PM
009256
FW: Input Request - Weekly S2 Deputies Committee Briefing Memo
Subject: FW: Input Request - Weekly 52 Deputies Committee Briefing Memo

From: "Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:00:21 -0700
To: HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-50LUTION5-GROUP <NIC-HQ-IA5G@uscg.mil>
CC: "Cooper, Kevin L1" <Kevin.J.Cooper@uscg.mil>, "Grawe, William"
<William.R.Grawe@uscg.dhs.goY>, "Nakama, Robert LCDR" <Robert.A.Nakama@uscg.mil>
IASG Members,
This is a list of the S-2 TPs for tomorrow afternoon's meeting. Please seek out those
issues that are relevant to your agencies, and I thank you in advance for your timely
response; we need your inputs by 12:00 noon today. Additionally, thank you, Shannon and
Martha, for the time you spent this morning clarifying your inputs and TPs to LT
Cooper. There is a lot of attention on the flow rate, the oil budget and subsurface
plume issues, so I appreciate your (Martha and Mark's) solid, concise bullets on these
issues.
CDR Baron Brown, USCG
NIC-IASG
202-372-1721
-----Original Message----From: Cooper, Kevin LT
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:25 PM
To: Cooper, Kevin LT; Gould, Austin CAPT; McKenna, Robert CDR; Ormes, David; Campbell,
Elizabeth CDR; Lafferty, Miriam CDR; Brown, Baron CDR; Novotny, Jeffrey CAPT; Fish,
David CAPT; Goerling, Richard LCDR; Kiefer, Kevin CAPT; Offutt, Todd CDR; Hoffman,
Peter CDR
Cc: Bernstein, Kristi LCDR; Megan, Michael CAPT; Schallip, Michele LT; Moland, Mark
CDR; Wiedenhoeft, Paul CAPT; Penoyer, Brian CDR; HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit
Subject: RE: Input Request - Weekly S2 Deputies Committee Briefing Memo
Good Afternoon Senior NIC and CG-545 leadership,
Attached is the outline for S2's Briefing Memo for this week's FRIDAY JUNE 25th,
Deputies Committee Meeting on Deepwater Horizon.
Respectfully request the talking points be populated under the specific issues under
your purview (see red text in document), by 1200 on THURSDAY JUNE 24th to give
coordinating agencies ample time for review and comment.
Please note that this is a separate document than the daily SLBs.
Thank you for your assistance and please let me know if you have any questions.
VIR,
LT Kevin Cooper
DCO-A & CG-5 Executive Staff
Content-Description: 52BMDC_25JUN10 V1.docx

application/vnd. opemanl formats. S2BMDC_25JUN10 V1.docx Content-Type:
officedocument. word processing mi. docu ment
1 of 1
9/27/20102:06 PM
009259
vi) Issue 7: NIC-HQ Interagency Alternate-Technology Assessment (lATA) Work

Group (IASG/CDR Brown)
IV)Policy Workgroup Updates (ALL)
Integrated Services (DPC/OMB)
Public Health CDPC)

i) Seafood Safety Group (NOAAIFDAlOMB)
Legal (DOJIDHS/WH Counsel)

i) Marine Board of Investigation (CG-S4S)
IntergovernmentaVCongressional (DHSIWH IGA) (NIC-LEG AFFAIRS)
Economic Analysis (NEC/OECC)
Environmental Analysis (EPAlNOAAIDOI)

i) Restoration and Recovery Subgroup (OECCIEP AlDOIINOAA)
Post~Event
Recovery (DPC/OMB)
V) SUMMARY (NSS/OECC)
Oil Budget Tool Notes and Timeline
009260
Subject: Oil Budget Tool Notes and Timeline

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:13:24 -0600
To: Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, CDR
Peter Hoffman <Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>, Scott.R.Lundgren@uscg.mil,
Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil, Robert.A.Nakama@uscg.mil, Amy.Mcelroy@uscg.mil,
Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil, Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, Catherine_Cesnik@ios.doLgov
CC: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Jeffrey Allen
<allenj@usgs.gov>, Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>
Greetings,
We are on track for a 1.0 release of the Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
Tool pending several dependencies being met today. The following notes provide an
overview of current status and timeline following our meeting yesterday.
Notes
- Clarifications were made about the scenario titles "Low Flow Rate/Maximum Recovery" and
"High Flow Rate/Minimum Recovery." The scenarios include not only the differences in low
and high discharge rate estimates but also provide factors on evaporation rates, dispersion
effectiveness, and other criteria that essentially bound the issue into a logical "best" and
"worst" case.
- Overall, the application seems to be on track with the Coast Guard's needs, and we can
stay on track with the timeline.
- We need to make sure that all graphs have titles. Titles can be changed as needed based
on Coast Guard report preferences.
- The group consensus was that a "barrel graph"/stacked bar chart is a highly desirable
element that should be added as soon as possible.
- Other new features and improvements were documented in the Jira project. Anyone is
welcome to look that over and have direct access should you wish.
Timeline Updates
- CDR Peter Hoffman and Mark Miller (NOAA) will be queried to provide users for the
reader, author, and manager roles. (Email went out with a request for this information on
June 23.)
- Bill Lehr will facilitate getting us a "near-final" version of the NOAA Mass Balance
document on Thursday, June 24, containing any updates to the formulas and factors along
with descriptive information (bullets) to be used in the application describing the
various calculations and assumptions.
- We are prepared to release version 1.0 of the application either the afternoon/evening of
June 24 or the morning of June 25. Unless there are any major show stoppers, we can put
out a version 1.0 release and then continue making incremental changes and improvements
in coming days and weeks.
- After production release, the USGS team can schedule one or more orientation sessions
with NIC users to get them started using the application.
<.(<--... -<.(<----<.
I of2
9/27/20102:06 PM
Oil Budget Tool Notes and Timeline
009261
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<.(<----<.----<.(<:
2 of2
9/27/20102:06 PM
TODA Y: Mass Balance Presentation, June 24th, 1 - 2 pm
009262
Subject: TODAY: Mass Balance Presentation, June 24th, 1 - 2 pm

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 201009:13:38 -0400
To: NIC-HQ-IASG <NIC-HQ-IASG@uscg.mil>, NIC <NIC-HQ-Situation-Unit@uscg.mU>,
Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Marcia K
McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>, Swackhammer.J-Troy@epamail.epa.gov
CC: peter.m.hoffman@uscg.mil, sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil
Join us for Dr. Victor Labson's presentation on
Mass Balance 101: Oil Budgets, Discharge Rates, and Available Oil
Where: Coast Guard Headquarters, Conf Room 5-0624
When: 1:00 - 2:00 pm
Contact: Martha Garcia, USGS Liaison to the NIC, mgarcia@usgs.gov
Summary: A "mass balance" is a widely used approach to accounting for the total amount of
a material that enters and leaves a system. Mass Balance run in a forward direction starting
from a discharge rate can be used to compute a daily and cumulative Oil Budget. Run in
reverse, Mass Balance starts with an oil budget and computes a Discharge Rate. The two are
the same if all sources of available oil are accounted for and all losses are quantified.
The daily updates for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill generate an "oil budget." This involves
determining the amount of oil flowing from the riser, then subtracting out what is removed by
various techniques or natural processes. The difference that remains represents oil that is still
available on the surface (or subsurface) and that may impact natural and economic resources
in the G.ulf.
Some factors are directly measured; others are estimated based on particular assumptions with
some level of uncertainty. Different agencies or organizations are responsible for reporting
the various components used in the calculation.
The overall oil balance estimate can change over time as we refine our knowledge of anyone
of the components in the equation.
The daily and cumulative oil budget estimate differs from the mass balance calculations and
report generated by the FRTG Mass Balance Sub-team, which were based a one-time (May 17,
2010) estimate of the total amount of surface oil in the Gulf. The surface oil was measured by
the NASA Airborne AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infra-Red Imaging Spectrometer) and the MODIS
(MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite. This measurement of available oil
was used to back-calculate through a process similar to the oil budget and using similar
assumptions to arrive at an estimate of the minimum average daily flow rate for the preceding
period l as described in the May 27 th FRTG preliminary report.
Martha N. GarCia, Chief of Staff
Reston, VA 20192
http://biology .usgs .gov
lof2
ax
mgarcia@usgs.gov
9/27/20102:06 PM
Re: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]
009263
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]

From: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov> .
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:47:11 -0400
To: "'Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov'" <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>, "'james.turner@noaa.gov'"
<James. Tu rner@noaa.gov>
CC: "'Debbie. Payton@noaa.gov'" <Debbie. Payton@noaa.gov>, "'Allison. Reed@noaa.gov'"
<Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>, "'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov''' <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>,
"'Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov'" <Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Thanks. I will forward to State. One item we will need to think through if the loop current clearance situation does
not change is how to address loop current updates.
From: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>

To: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
Cc: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>; 'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov' <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>;
'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov' <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jun 2408:26:462010
Subject: Re: [Fwd:-FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]
Dr Turner,
Please find below the OR&R response to Embassy Nassau's questions on logistics for the trip to
Seattle. I've also included an answer to their 2nd round of questions re: contents of a 4 week
training course. As you will see below, we are not thinking of this visit as a formal training, but it
will be a great learning opportunity for the right candidate.
1) NOAA to confirm that it is a four week training and location of NOAA Office:
We do not have a specific 4 week training course to offer. The 4 week time frame came in
response to one of the original questions asked by Embassy Nassau following our initial briefing
to them in early June. If an experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of
ocean observation / modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person to gain a basic
understanding of our oil fate and trajectory modeling approach.
During the 4 week stay, the visiting scientist will work in the Seattle office of the Office or
Response and Restoration, Emergency Response Division. The visitor will have the opportunity
to observe the development of daily fate and trajectory models for the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill;speak with NOAA scientists working on the spill; learn about the General NOAA Operational
IVlodeling Environment (GNOME); learn about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity
database; and develop a broader understanding of how to apply these forecasting and modeling
tools to oil and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an opportunity to
discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport models related to the Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily
updates on the status of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico.
2) Names of at least three hotels so that we can research rates.
Silver Cloud Hotel - University. http://www.silvercloud.comluniversity.htm
Watertown Hotel. http://www.watertownseattle.com!
Travel Lodge - Seattle University. trave lodge seattle university .com
lof4
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
Re: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE)
009264
3) General cost of taxi to and from NOAA Office to any of the recommended hotels
10-20 USD. Recommend renting a car if you are staying more than a few days.
4) General cost of taxi to and from Airport
50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:

Fyi, see additional information requested by Bahamas and the explanation about why
they need it. Thanks
Subject:
FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
From: "Moppert, Brooke S" <MoppertBS@state.gov>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
To: "Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner
To: "Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner
CC: "Mack-Wilson, Joslyn Gil <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson K"
<DubeIJK@state.gov>
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail chain below) - they would like to have a
schedule of training, a description of the training and what skills the trainee would obtain at the end
of the training.
This may seem like a lot to ask of NOAA, but the Bahamian government must have this information in
order to justify the expense to Parliament. The Prime Minister has currently banned all government
travel as a cost-saving maneuver (there are hard economic times here as well), Therefore, anything
you can provide with more detail would go a long way in facilitating this exchange.
Thanks,
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
Embassy of the United States of America
Nassau, The Bahamas
2of4
9/27/20102:06 PM
Re: [Fwd: FW: TECHNlCALASSISTANCE]
009265
From: carol Albury [mailto:calbury@
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:20 AM
ISubject:
To: Moppert, Brooke S; carolann albury; C Albury
RE: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
I Good Morning Brooke

j
There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would be a schedule of
training which is to take place over the duration of say 4 weeks. A brief on what the
technical person(s) who is receiving the training would be capable of performing as a result
of the training.
I
!
Your kind aSSistance is appredated.
.I
Regards
-----------------
carolann albury
Director,
Bahamas National Geographic Information Systems (BNGIS) Centre
From: calbury@
.
iTo: moppertbs@state.gov; carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs; calbury@
! Subject: RE: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
i
~
Good Day Brooke,

1 Thank you for taking my call.
i
l
! In reference to our conversation concerning the above captioned, I am advised by Captain

I Russell to submit communications regarding costing for our technical officer to take
! advantage of the technical assistance being offered by The US through the NOAA office. I
I suppose the office is located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle
WA (NOAA Pribilif Project
j Office/National Weather Service).

i
I Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per diem, ground
I transportation, round trip airfare and
I
communications, grateful if you would provide the

following information which would help determining cost implications:
!I,
i
I
I 2) Names of at least three hotels so that we can research rates.

t
Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while my budget has been
slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS Centre and the MET Department as very
important and essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill particularly in our
30f4
9/27/20102:06 PM
Re: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]
009266
region.
Your kind assistance is most appreciated.
Regards
=================
carolann albury
Director,
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.

40f4
9/27/20102:06 PM
RE: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]
009267
Subject: RE: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 201009:56:57 -0400
To: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>,
"Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES)" <KimEAB@state.gov>, "Colon, Frances A (WHA)"
<ColonFA@state.gov>
CC: Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov, Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov, Allison.Reed@noaa.gov,
Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov, Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <MackWilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson Kif <DubeIJK@state.gov>
Many thanks Jim, as always, for you and your team's assistance. I will pass along and let you know what
they say.
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
Em bassy of the United States of America
Nassau, The Bahamas
From: James Tumer (mailto:James.Tumer@noaa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:55 AM
To: Moppert, Brooke S; Sykes, Sherry Z; Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES); Colon, Frances A {WHA}
Cc: 'Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov'; 'debbie.payton@noaa.gov'; 'Aliison.Reed@noaa.gov';
'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'
Subject: Fw: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]
Responses to Brooke's visit logistics questions. Please note, if current OMB restrictions on discussing the loop
current do not change prior to a visit, we will develop appropriate guidance.

To: James Tumer <James.Tumer@noaa.gov>
Cc: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>; 'Aliison.Reed@noaa.gov' <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>;
'Pamela .Toschik@noaa.gov' < Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
Dr Turner,
training course. As you will see below, we are not thinking of this visit as a formal 'training, but it
10f4
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
RE: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCEl
009268
to them in early June. If an experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of
ocean observation I modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person to gain a basic
Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity
tools to oil and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an opportunity to
Watertown Hote I. http://wwvv.watertownseattle.com!
Travel Lodge - Seattle University. travelodgeseattleuniversity.com
50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:
Fyi, see additional information requested by Bahamas and the explanation about why they need it.
Thanks
Subject:
From:
"Moppert, Brooke S" <MoppertBS@state.gov>
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
To:
"Sykes, Sherry zn <SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
To:
ItSykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
CC:
ItMack-Wilson, Joslyn Gil <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubelJK.@state.gov>
2of4
9/27/20102:06 PM
009269
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-ma"iI chain below) - they would like to have a
schedule of training, a description of the training and what skills the trainee would obtain at the end of the
training.
This may seem like a lot to ask of NOAA, but the Bahamian government must have this information in order
to justify the expense to Parliament. The Prime Minister has currently banned all government travel as a
cost-saving maneuver (there are hard economic times here as well). Therefore, anything you can provide
with more detail would go a long way in facilitating this exchange.
Thanks,
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
Nassau, The Bahamas
242-322-1181 X4218 (w)
moppertbs@state.gov
From: Carol Albury [mailto:calbury@

To: Moppert, Brooke Si Carolann albury;-C Albury
Subject: RE: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Good Morning Brooke,
There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would be a schedule of training
which is to take place over the duration of say 4 weeks. A brief on what the technical person(s)
who is receiving the training would be capable of performing as a result of the training.
Your kind assistance is appreciated.
Regards
---------------------------------
carolann albury
Director,
From: calbury@
.
To: moppertbs@state.govi carolannalbu ry@bahamas.gov.bs; cal bury@
30f4
9/27/20102:06 PM
009270
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400

Good Day Brooke,
Thank you for taking my call.
In reference to our conversation concerning the above captioned, I am advised by Captain
Russell to submit communications regarding costing for our technical officer to take advantage of
the technical assistance being offered by The US through the NOAA office. I suppose the office is
located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif Project Office/National Weather
Service).
Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per diem, ground transportation,
round trip airfare and communications t grateful if you would provide the following information
which would help determining cost implications:
Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while my budget has been slashed
this training is considered by the BNGIS Centre and the MET Department as very important and
essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill particularly in our region.
Regards
----------------carolann albury
Director,

4of4
9/27/20102:06 PM
009271
Oil budget
Subject: Oil budget

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 201007:04:50 -0700
To: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>,
Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>. Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>,
vlabson@usgs.gov, Amy MqElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Nathalie Valette-Silver
Mark,
As promised, oil budget write-up. Note that some of the numbers have changed slightly due
to input from the listed experts.
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ORR
206 719 1813
Mass Balance formulas (F).docx
1 of 1
C t tT
.
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
009272
OI ...... tKS_) .... tM.~. . . . . __

~fWtM~.. ~t'tMlt..... .
June 24,2010
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ORR

009273
Behavior of spilled oil

Cleanup of oils is generally designed to enhance or add to natural removal mechanisms.
Figure 1 shows the processes that can happen to oil on the water surface.
evaporation
photo-oxidation
spreading
oil slick
air
water
dispersion
dissolution
emulsification
biodegradation
Figure 1, Natural weathering processes
This spill has the added challenge of originating from a highly turbulent, two-phase, warm
jet a mile beneath the water surface. Because ofits size and peculiar nature, the
Deepwater Horizon Spill is not amenable to many standard oil fate and behavior
assumptions. Experts in oil spill science and experienced spill professionals were
contacted for their views on how these standard assumptions should be modified for this
incident.
ICS209
threat. Currently, the information equivalent to the Form 209 is in an Excel spreadsheet.
The recommended structure for the flowchart is shown in Figure 2.
009274
subsulfate
su bsulface
mit ural
chemical
dispersion
dispcnion
surface oil
..............
., .....
btlrned
surface'" oil
In 1111111 . . ' n n . . . .
evaporation
lime
surface oil
chemically
dispersed
surface oil
collected
surface oil
rem~inif\g
Figure 2. Speadsheet logic diagram
Use of Multiple scenarios:

The program computes a best case, worst case, and, possibly; an expected scenario. The
worst case assumes maximum release and minimum removal. Best case will do the
reverse. Depending upon the requests of the NIC, most likely values may be wanted and
so are also provided. Most likely scenarios use average release estimates and average
expected removal. Since some of the input terms will have different values depending
upon whether we are looking at best case, worst case or most likely case, they are listed
as
TERM =(likely, best, worst)
Definition of Terms:
009275
j = day of spill. The riser was cut (June 3) on j = 45,
VS(j)= volume in bbl of surface oil on day j

VR(j) = oil release rate in bbl/day on day j
VREO) = effective release rate in bbl/day on day j
VDO)= total oil volume in bbl dispersed in bbl/day on day j
VC(j) = total oil volume in bbl of chemically dispersed oil on day j
VDB(j) = oil volume in bbl dispersed at the bottom on day j
VDC(j) = oil volume in bbl chemically dispersed at bottom on day j
VDN(j) = oil volume in bbl naturally dispersed at bottom on day j
VCBO) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the bottom on day j
VCSOJ = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the surface on day j
VBU(j)= volume in bbl burned on day j
VNW(j) = net oil volume in bbl collected on day j
YEO) = volume in bbl of oil that either evaporated or dissolved on day j
Use of Expert advice:

In order to capture a reservoir of knowledge and experience on this problem, a wide
variety of experts were consulted and asked to comment on a preliminary version of this
document. As ofJune 23, the following experts had responded
Expert
affiliation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
Al Allan
SpilTec
James Payne
Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton
LSU
Juan Lasheras
UCSD
Albert Venosa
EPA
Merv Fingas
Ali Khelifa
Env Canada (ret)

Env. Canada
Robert Jones
I NOAA
Pat Lambert
I Env. Canada
Victoria Broje
';;>U~"'.L
009276
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.
The degree and detail of the response varied. In many cases the expert simply promised a
more thorough analysis at a later date. One expert was unable to respond due to a
confidentiality agreement with BP. Response by an expert does not indicate agreement
with the assumptions or conclusions in this document.
Leakage
Rules:
VRO) = (30,000, 20,000,40,000) ifj < 45
= (40,000, 35,000, 60,000) if j 2: 45
VREO) =VRU)- VDTO)
Bullets:
Uses flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements

Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut
Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) Plume Team produced estimates of the total
Jeakage prior to Top Kill or severing the riser by using a variant of Particle Image
Velocimetry (PlY). While difficult in practice, PIV is simple in principle. In this method a
flow event, e.g. an eddy or other identifiable item, is observed at two consecutive video
frames. Distance moved per time between frames gives a velocity, after adjustment for
viewing angle and other factors. Repeated measurement over time and space give an
estimated mean flow. The spatially adjusted flow field multiplied by cross-section area of
the plume gives a total volume flux. This is then multiplied by liquid fraction. The Team
used the same method to estimate leakage after the riser cut but prior to capping the flow.
Hence, their results provide a consistent method for estimating leakage for the entire spill
duration. The maximum and minimum values represent the extreme bounds reported.
The Plume Team did not offer a 'best guess' answer but rather gave a range representing
the most likely flow (as opposed to maximum-minimum bounds). I have used the upper
limit of that range as likely flow.
Other FRTG and DOE teams estimated the flow either prior to the severing of the riser or
after this operation. Flow values both higher and lower than the suggested ones in this
report were generated by these other teams.
The complete FRTG set of reports should be available shortly.
009277
Dispersed oil
Kdl = (0.2, 0.3,0.1) = natural dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd2 =(0.8, I, 0.5)
=chemical dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd3 =(0.25, 0.5, 0.1) =chemical dispersion effectiveness at the surface
VDCO) =20*Kd2*VCBO) but not to exceed VREm
VDNm = (VREO)- VDCO))*Kdl
VDBO) = VDCO) + VDNO)
VDSO) =20*Kd3*VCSO) but not to exceed VSU-l)
veO) = VDSO) + VDCO)
VDm =VDBUJ + VDSm
Bullets:
Droplet smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed

ITOPF 'planning purpose' dosage of 20:1 used as estimate for successful chemical
dispersant application
The oil and gas leaking out at the Deep Horizon oil spill are all abuoyant and, therefore would,
neglecting other processes, rise to the asurface. However, one cannot neglect other processes.
Originally, the Descaping plume will be a mixture of gas and oil, with additional gas adissolved
within the oil. According to the Clarkson University model aCDOG, this plume will maintain
its integrity for at most a few hundred ameters with strong positive buoyancy. Several
competing processes will ainterfere with this process. The gas will rise faster than the oil,
a'slipping' past the droplets but will also form hydrates with the asurrounding water. Water will
be entrained into the plume by turbulence athat will also contribute to changing droplet size
distribution of the aoil mixed into the plume. These oil droplets will rise to the surface abased
upon some form of Stokes law, where the rise velocity increases with droplet size. For small
enough oil droplet size, the rise velocity is so asmall that competing processes affect it before it
can make it to the asurface. These processes include dissolution, biodegradation, and aparticleoil interaction. These processes will vary in strength adepending upon where the oil droplet is
located. Field measurement may Dhelp to quantify these processes but, as a standard cut-off
value, 70-100 microns is used as the minimum droplet size below which that droplet ais
considered permanently dispersed.aa Because oil droplet formation is the product of multiple
shear interactions caused by the turbulent flow, the droplet size probability distribution is
009278
described by a log nonnal function shown below (x is droplet size)

P{x)
For natural dispersion, Delvigne's model is the standard approach to estimating the fraction of
oil dispersed into the water column. Delvigne, in a series of experiments at Delft University,
found that the mean oil droplet size, d, could approximately be related to the energy density
dissipation rate, s, by the expression
dOCy~
so we get proportionately more small droplets as the energy density dissipation rate increases.
For most surface spills, the turbulent energy comes from breaking waves. For the conditions in
the Gulf during this incident, this translates to an s of about 100 J per cu. m. per sec or larger.
The NOAA oil fate and behavior model, ADIOS2, suggests that if this spill aoccurred at the
surface under these conditions, less than 8 % of the oil would disperse. However, it is not
breaking waves but the turbulence at the leak that is fonning these oil droplets. In this case, s
would be expected to be much larger near the riser exit, causing the mean droplet size to be
smaller and dispersed oil percentage to be larger.
If we attempt to compare this blowout to the Ixtoc 1, different reports for that case claimed that
between 3% to 26% of ended up in the water column or on the bottom. Several of the experts
consulted on this question suggested that the differences between the two incidents were large
enough that estimating dispersed oil by analogy to Ixtoc would be inappropriate.
Some limited data exists from the RV Brook McCall Survey LISST ameasurements perfonned
by the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. If one, aextrapolates their results to the entire spill, a
dangerous exercise with a high degree of auncertainty, then one can conclude that perhaps 30%
aof the oil released during non-dispersant operations were dispersed into athe water column.
However, since the samples were subsurface, they amay be preferentially sampling the droplet
distribution fonned ainitially. Payne reports plumes of oil droplets at depth over 2 km. away
from the source with larger droplets on the top of the plume and smaller below. This would be
consistent with a large amount of dispersion and weak buoyancy.
Most of the experts that offered suggestions on natural dispersion concluded that dispersion
would be higher than the amount predicted for a surface spill because of increased turbulence
in the oil-gas jet and reduced viscosity related to the high temperature of the exiting oil.
009279
The droplet size distribution in the plume is greatly affected by viscosity and surface tension.
Since some of the lighter ends are lost through dissolution on the oil journey to the surface and
since the surface oil rapidly emulsifies, the viscosity of the surface oil is quite high compared to
the heated oil at the source. The seas were also relatively calm. For oil budget purposes, the
surface oil is assumed to have negligible natural dispersion.
The addition of chemical dispersants significantly lowers oil surface tension and hence reduces
mean droplet size. The subsurface dispersant application was ideal for the introduction of
dispersants; direct contact between oil and the dispersant, fresh oil, and high turbulence. The
ITOPF Technical Information Paper for chemical dispersant usage recommends for planning
purposes to use one part dispersant for 20 parts dispersed oil. They point out that spraying
equipment is often pre-configured to achieve this. Therefore, this ratio was used to define a
fully successful dispersant application.
Some experts were concerned that the entrained gas would reduce the effectiveness of the
dispersant application by preventing contact between oil and surfactant. They also thought that
the time of contact might be insufficient to achieve optimum effect. Their concerns are
captured in the choice for minimum effectiveness.
Suggested research
More complete sampling of dispersed oil near the source coupled with a subsurface plume
model to translate the sample results into a better estimate of dispersed oil volume.
Characterization of the turbulence energy spectrum for the leak.
Burning Losses
Bullets
ASTM burn rate standards used
Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil.
For ignition to occur, the oil film must generally be greater than 2 mm. Since this is
thicker than oil slicks that are allowed to spread naturally, the oil must be contained in
special fire-proof booms. Spilled oil sometimes entrains water, forming a stable emulsion.
Emulsions that contain more than 15% water are difficult to ignite and emulsions that
contain more than 50% water are almost impossible to ignite. High winds and waves may
prevent burn operations. Oil burns with a 'regression rate' of approximately 0.05 mm/sec
(slightly more than a tenth of an inch per minute) Part ofthe oil is turned into smoke. The
actual percentage depends upon the size of the burn and other factors but usually is in the
range of 10-15% of the mass of the oil. Burning is a highly efficient oil removal
mechanism. A successful burn will remove 90-95% of the ignited oil. The reported burn
rates for the Deepwater Horizon oil are 0.048 mm/sec for non-emulsified oil and 0.34
mm/sec for emulsified oils. While these are in line with ASTM standards, Fingas, based
upon burn studies, suggests that the emulsified oil burn rate should be closer to 0.24.
009280
However, burn volumes are not reported by percentage emulsified oil burned and nonemulsified oil burned. Therefore, without additional data, it is hard to separate out the
two in a spreadsheet.
Suggested research
Examine the possibility to specify the amount of emulsified oil fraction that is burned in
any burn operations.

Evl =(0.37,0.44,0.33) =evaporation rate on freshly surfaced oil (includes dissolution)
.
VEO) =(VREO) - VDBO) - VBUO))*Evl+(VREU-l) - VDBU-l) - VBU(j-l))*Ev2
Bullets:
'Pseudo-component' approach used in estimate
Figure 3 shows a chromatogram of the fresh oil from the reservoir. Like all crude oils, this
oil is composed of thousands of different hydrocarbons, each with slightly different
physical and chemical properties.
TtC: QR10"'SD,O
300000
280000
280000
240000
220000
2000'00
180000
160000
140000
'20000
100000
80000
00000
40000
20"""
009281
Figure 3 Chromatogram of fresh oil
Using Raoult's Law, the vapor pressure ofthe total oil is assumed to be a weighted
average of the individual components. Most evaporation models assume that the oil can
be treated as a well-mixed fluid so that evaporative losses are not dependent upon any
particular hydrocarbon being impeded to make it to the oil-air interface. This 'well-mixed'
assumption allows, with suitable modification, the use of evaporation estimation
techniques developed for homogeneous liquids. The driving factor for evaporation will be
the effective vapor pressure of the oil and the limiting factor will be the ability of the wind
to remove the oil vapor from the surface boundary layer.
The exception is a model proposed by Environment Canada that yields lower estimates
for evaporation based upon diffusion limitations within the oil itself. Figure 4 shows their
estimate for evaporation for this type of crude.
'"1I
:IS!
1,,,1
~
:->-t_ _
o
600
~
1Il00
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1-00
zt.:xl
2"'M
3NtlO
:.1600
.woo
TlrM(1IIi::nt.rt.ft;
Figure 4 Evaporation of SL crude according to Environment Canada.
According to their model, evaporation is rapid but limited with a total loss of
approximately 30%. Their model, however, assumes a cohesive slick, not the widely
scattered pieces that make up this spill. Nevertheless Fingas reports that evaporation of
the oil would probably occur in a massive jump as it seems a deep-sea release does this to
the oil. He carried out a series of high pressure water releases during the sub-sea
programs a decade ago and found that roughly 2/3 of the 5-day weathering amount at the
relevant temperature was released nearly immediately. The volatiles are gone rapidly and
the oil quickly emulsifies. This seems to be somewhat confirmed by observations by LSU
experts. Overton notes a subsurface sample appeared fresh but had the naphthalenes
completely miSSing. He speculated that this sample was deep oil that has never gotten to
the surface and the aromatics have dissolved into the water column. Certainly,
dissolution is a competing process to evaporation for this incident since, in general, the
more volatile hydrocarbons are also the most soluble.
For the purpose of the oil budget calculations, the more standard pseUdo-component
method refined by Payne was used. The oil is postulated to consist of a limited number of
components, with each component corresponding to one of the cuts from the distilJation
data for the oil of concern. Each component is characterized by a mole fraction and a
vapor pressure. Each component is composed primarily of a few alkanes and the
properties of the components are based on the average of the alkane properties. Based
009282
upon data on the oil composition provided by BP, the method suggests that as much as
46% of the oil can be lost to evaporation over several weeks on the sea surface. However,
the greater portion is lost in the first two days.
LSU/NOAA measured the composition of weathered oil collected from the sea surface on
16 May using GC/MS, and analyzed the results using the pseudo-component evaporation
model. They found that the weathered oil sample had Jost 38% of its mass to the
combination of evaporation and dissolution.
For oil budget purposes, it does not matter if a hydrocarbon molecule is lost to
evaporation or dissolution. It is effectively removed from cleanup operations. Therefore,
the suggested evaporation constants include dissolution. While most of the evaporative
losses occur in the first day, there are further losses as the slick ages. The spreadsheet
formulas allow for second day losses.
The evaporation will cause changes to the remaining surface oil, increasing density and
viscosity. The oil also shows a strong tendency to emulsify and to form tar balls. Both of
these mechanisms will slow evaporative. Past spills in the Gulf have produced an "M&M"
phenomena where fresh interior oil is surrounded by a crust of more weathered oil.
Suggested research:
Samples should be taken and chemically analyzed for oil from above the leak source as it
first surfaces, as well as for weathered oil close to shore. The former provides data on the
extent of dissolution while the latter gives an estimate to the amount lost to long-term
evaporation after surfacing.
Skimmed Oil
Kow= (0.2,0.4, 0.1) = net oil fraction of oily water
VNWO)= Kow*VOWO)
Bullets:
Very rough estimation
Amount should be based upon actual measurement
The estimated oil content of the skimmed product was increased based upon suggestions
by oil company experts. However, the original recommendation for actual sampling of the
barge oil remains.
Floating oil
VSO) = VSO-1) +VREO) - VEO) - VNWO) - VBUO) - VDm
009283
Bulllets:
Includes both floating and 'beached' oil

Much of the surface oil is near neutral buoyancy
Surface oil category includes not only oil actually on the surface but that oil that has
washed ashore or mixed with sediment in the nearshore and sank. It is difficult to
determine the volume of this oil directly because standard visual volume estimations are
highly unreliable. The best current method is the NASA ER-2/ AVIRIS system but even
this instrument is unable to estimate tar ball volume.
009284
Numbers
Subject: Numbers
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:43:43 -0400
Calculations from the FRTG 1. This oil budget shows that as of day 57, the total "low-end" estimate of oil released to the enviornment (as an
oil slick or dispersed) and not accounted for by collection, burning or evaporation is 562,992 bbls. The
"high-end" estimate as of day 57 is 1,132,992 bbls. When rounded this means a range between and a half
million and one million barrels as of day 57.
Assumptions/Methodology 1. Uses a lower bound estimate of 35,000 barrels per day and an upper bound of 60,000 barrels per
day multiplied by the total number of days of the spill (since the science team does not believe that the flow rate
has appreciably changed since the riser was cut).
2. From those numbers the FRTG subtract ed the amount of oil that was collected by the RITI and the Top
Hat.
That number is the oil that was released to the ocean (=00).
3. Then the FRTG multipl ied 00 by 0.40 to approximately account for evaporation and dissolution. This is the
amount of oil that persists in the environment (=OE). The FRTG know s that some portion of OE has either
been naturally or anthropogenically dispersed into the deep sea or shallow ocean by wave action, deep sea
processes, or the application of dispersants. The FRTG believes a lot more work is necessary on this part of
the calculation which is why this should be considered an interim oil budget subject to further refinement.
Caveats from the FRTG -
1. These are the high and low estimates for the unaccounted oil released based on what we know has been
collected or evaporated based on current understanding.
2. This is a WORST CASE scenario. The reason for that is that it is very likely that some of the oil that was
released and dispersed has already been metabolized by microbial action. None of that is accounted for.
Furthermore, to the extent that much of this oil was dispersed either at the surface or subsea, it is unlikely to
have a large impact on the coastline.

Reston, VA 20192
fax
mgarcia@usgs.gov
1 of 1
9/27/20102:06 PM
RE: Input Request (Weekly S2 Deputies Brief) - More Time? Yes. 009285
Subject: RE: Input Request (Weekly S2 Deputies Brief) - More Time? Yes.
From: "Nakama, Robert LCDR" <Robert.A.Nakama@uscg.mil>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 201005:30:54 -1000
To: HQS-OG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP <NIC-HQIASG@uscg.mil>
Aloha IASG
memb~rs,
Seems the S2 Deputies Committee Briefing has been postponed. 80, there is more
time allotted to each of you to provide the information requested below.
CDR Brown requests that your respective input be provided by Close of Business
tomorrow (25 June). Thanks.
Sincerely,
LCDR Rob Nakama, U8CG
IASG
-----Original Message----From: Brown, Baron CDR
To: HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP
Cc: Cooper, Kevin LT; Grawe, William; Nakama, Robert LCDR
Subject: FW: Input Request
Weekly S2 Deputies Committee Briefing Memo
IASG Members,
This is a list of the 8-2 TPs for tomorrow afternoon's meeting. Please seek out
those issues that are relevant to your agencies, and I thank you in advance for
your timely response; we need your inputs by 12:00 noon today. Additionally,
thank you, 8hannon and Martha, for the time you spent this morning clarifying
your inputs and TPs to LT Cooper. There is a lot of attention on the flow rate,
the oil budget and subsurface plume issues, so I appreciate your (Martha and
Mark's) solid, concise bullets on these issues.
NIC-IASG
-----Original Message----From: Cooper, Kevin LT
To: Cooper, Kevin LT; Gould, Austin CAPT; McKenna, Robert CDR; Oimes, David;
Campbell, Elizabeth CDR; Lafferty, Miriam CDR; Brown, Baron CDR; Novotny, Jeffrey
CAPT; Fish, David CAPT; Goerling, Richard LCDR; Kiefer, Kevin CAPT; Offutt, Todd
CDR; Hoffman, Peter CDR
Cc: Bernstein, Kristi LCDR; Megan, Michael CAPT; Schallip, Michele LT; Moland,
Mark CDR; Wiedenhoeft, Paul CAPT; Penoyer, Brian CDR; HQ8-PF-fldr-NIC HQ
Situation Unit
Subject: RE: Input Request - Weekly 82 Deputies Committee Briefing Memo
Good Afternoon Senior NIC and CG-545 leadership,
Attached is the outline for 82's Briefing Memo for this week's FRIDAY JUNE 25th,
Deputies Committee Meeting on Deepwater Horizon.
Respectfully request the talking points be populated under the specific issues
under your purview (see red text in document), by 1200 on THURSDAY JUNE 24th to
give coordinating agencies ample time for review and comment.
] of2
9/27/2010 2:06 PM
RE: Input Request (Weekly 82 Deputies Brief) - More Time? Yes.
009286
Please note that this is a separate document than the daily SLBs.
Thank you for your assistance and please let me know if you have any questions.
V/R,
LT Kevin Cooper
DCO-A & CG-5 Executive Staff
202-372-2274
2of2
9/27/20102:06
PM
009287
FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTMTY - JlU1e 17 State ...
Subject: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY - June 17 State Data Sheets
DWH
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 201008:33:21 -0700
To: Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Here's more background on the SCAT info we're looking for ...
NIC-IASG
202-372-1721
-----Original Message----From: Grawe, William
To: Martha Garcia; 'bill.lehr@noaa.gov'
Cc: Greene, Lawrence CDR; Brown, Baron CDR; Ormes, David
Subject: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY - June 17 State Data Sheets DWH
Perhaps this oily debris can be used for the oil budget ...
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
Wiedenhoeft, Paul CAPT
Sent:
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 08:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:
Wallace, Sara LT; LaBrec, Ronald CAPT; Gould, Austin CAPT; Fedor, Mark
CDR; Wallace, Sara LT; Kelley, Brian CAPT; Grawe, William; Greene, Lawrence CDR;
Cash, James CAPT; Brown, Baron CDR; LaBrec, Ronald CAPT; Mark Miller - NOAA
Subject:
RE: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY - June 17 State Data
Sheets DWH
Looks like this meets the mail for Meaningful, repeatable, simple and reportable
at the lowest level.
Thank you to all for a reasonable and quick solution to the
near-term need.
2} Shoreline Impacts on individual State Sheets:

a new column will be added to
the shoreline impacts that reflects CG effort/productivity to date.
The column
will be called "Removal (cubic yards)" and the footnote will read "cumulative
cubic yards of contaminated debris/oily water removed." This was discussed with
the UAC and they are able to meet this metric requirement.
CAPT W
Captain Paul Wiedenhoeft, USCG
National
-----Original Message----From: Wallace, Sara LT

Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 18:52
To: Neffenger, Peter RDML
Cc: Wiedenhoeft, Paul CAPT; Gould, Austin CAPT; McKenna, Robert CDR; Hubble,
Solange; Worst, Nicholas LT; Hein, Julia CDR; Becker, Elizabeth CDR; Moland, Mark
CDR
lof2
9/27/20102:07 PM
FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTMTY - June 17 State

...
009288
Subject: June 17 State Data Sheets DWH
RDML Neffenger,
We have two changes to the June 17 briefing slides:
1) We are reintroducing the aircraft data on the individual State Data sheets
from yesterday. Aircrafts will be broken out by # sorties for each employment
category: "Spot/Reconnaissance", "Spray" (dispersants) , and "Logistics." Working
wit~ the UAC, we have determined that sortie #'s by employment category will be
easier to capture than hrs in employment category.
2) Shoreline Impacts on individual State Sheets: a new column will be added to
The column
vir Sara
LT Sara Wallace
Director, Production Unit
20f2
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009289
Re: Oil budget
Subject: Re: Oil budget

From: 8ky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:47:45 -0600
To: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark 80gge
<mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
In reviewing the current document, we need someone to make an official call on
how we structure the scenarios in the W~b tool. Bill and the Team seem to be
pushing for the importance of a "likely" scenario that generally uses an average
of the "best" and "worst" factors for things like natural dispersion
effectiveness.
We need to know whether or not we should add that scenario to the tool. If it is
available as a report, we need to know how it should be titled. Also, just
because it is available, does not necessarily mean that it needs to be used in
any or all cases of the reports contributing to some information sharing process.
What is the most appropriate group to make the official calIon this issue?
<. (( ----<. (( (<----<. ((

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. (( (<----<. (( (<----<. (( (<

On Jun 24, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Martha N Garcia wrote:
! Sky,
I --------------------------
i Martha N. Garcia, Chief of

i Senior Advisor for Biology
I 301 National Center
I Reston, VA 20192
! mgarcia@usgs . gov
! 703 648-6960
I 703 648-4039 fax
II Sent
i
~
Staff
from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)
l'
,i
~ ----- Original Message
! From:
I, Sent:
Bill. Lehr
06/24/2010 07:04 AM MST
! To: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; Steve Lehmann
<Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>iMarthaGarcia;Mark Sogge; Victor Labson; Amy McElroy
<Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>; Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.ValetteSilver@noaa.gov>
Subject: Oil budget
I,
!I
[
Mark,
As promised, oil budget write-up. Note that some of the numbers have changed
slightly due to input from the listed experts.
IBill Lehr
10f2
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009290
Re: Oil budget
I NOAA/OF<.R
j 206
719 1813
, <Mass Balance formulas (F) .docx>
2of2
9/27/20102:07 PM
009291
Re: Oil budget

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:09:21 -0400
CC: Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
My recommendation would be to let CG decide. With the unhealthy focus on "numbers" I
like to reduce them where we can. The "worst case/best case" scenarios that we have now
are relatively easy to explain.
Mark
Sky Bristol wrote:
In reviewing the current document, we need someone to make an official call
on how we structure the scenarios in the Web tool. Bill and the Team seem to
be pushing for the importance of a "likely" scenario that generally uses an
average of the "best" and "worst" factors for things like natural dispersion
effectiveness.
We need to know whether or not we should add that scenario to the tool. If
it is available as a report, we need to know how it should be titled. Also,
just because it is available, does not necessarily mean that it needs to be
used in any or all cases of the reports contributing to some information
sharing process.
What is the most appropriate group to make the official calion this issue?
<. (( (<----<. (( ----<. ((

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
----<. (( (<
Sky, fyi
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@
fax
----- Original Message ----From: Bill.Lehr

Sent: 06/24/2010 07:04 AM MST
To: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W,Miller@noaa.gov>i Steve Lehmann
1 of2
9/27/20102:07 PM
009292
Re: Oil budget
<Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>; Martha Garcia; Mark Sogge; Victor Labson; Amy

McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>; Nathalie Valette-Silver
Subject: Oil budget
Mark,
As promised, oil budget write-up. Note that some of the numbers have
changed slightly due to input from the listed experts.
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ORR
206 719 1813
<Mass Balance formulas
.~ t
I
I
I
1
!
(F) .docx>
I
!
2of2
9/27/20102:07 PM
009293
Re: Oil budget

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:19:32 -0600
CC: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
Okay. I suggest we stick with what we have and present the option of adding another
scenario to the CG when we turn this over to them for use.
Are we okay with the scenario titles as they stand?
- Low Flow Rate/Maximum Removal
- High Flow RatelMinimum Removal
Also, I'm going through the document now to pull out the elements we should include in the
"footnotes" behind every item in the report. I would really like for a small group to review
those annotations either through the Web application itself or through the PDF reports we
can send around. I was a contaminants biologist in a previous life, but I'm not an expert in
this realm by any means. I'll use my judgment in putting together good, succinct
documentation that I think will communicate to the USCG folks, but we really need a few
sets of eyes on this.
Can I send this documentation element to you all for review later today?
Thank you.
<.(<----<.( < ----<.( <<<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 3032024181
Cell: 3032414122
<.(<----<.----<.:
On Jun 24, 2010, at 10: 10 AM, Martha N Garcia wrote:
I concur with Mark

! Senior Advisor for Biology
I 301 National Center

! Reston, VA 20192
I mgarcia@usgs.gov
I 703 648-6960
I 703 648-4039 fax
I
f
I
r
10f3

From: "Mark.W.Miller" [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Sent: 06/24/2010 12:09 PM AST
To: Sky Bristol
9/27/20102:07 PM
009294
Re: Oil budget
Cc: Martha Garcia; Mark Sogge

My recommendation would be to let CG decide. With the unhealthy focus on

"numbers" I like to reduce them where we can. The "worst case/best case" scenarios
that we have now are relatively easy to explain.
Mark
Sky Bristol wrote:
I In reviewing the current document, we need someone to make an official

calIon how we structure the scenarios in the Web tool. Bill and the
I Team seem to be pushing for the importance of a "likely" scenario that
j
',; generally uses an average of the "best" and "worst" factors for things
< like
natural dispersion effectiveness.
We need to know whether or not we should add that scenario to the tool.
: If it is available as a report, we need to know how it should be
I titled. Also, just because it is available, does not necessarily mean
I that it needs to be used in any or all cases of the reports
contributing to some information sharing process.
1,;
I
',
I
~
What is the most appropriate group to make the official calIon this
issue?
<. (( (<----<. ----<. (
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.aov
<. ( (
--
-<. ((
Sky, fyi
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov
I
i
II
\
Original Message
From: Bill. Lehr
Sent: 06/24/2010 07:04 AM MST
To: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>i Steve Lehmann
<Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>i Martha Garcia; Mark Soggei Victor
LabsoniAmy McElroy <Amy.McElroy@usccr.mil>; Nathalie ValetteSilver <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>
20f3
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009295
Re: Oil budget
Subject: Oil budget
Mark,
As promised, oil budget write-up. Note that some of the numbers
have changed slightly due to input from the listed experts.
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ORR
<Mass Balance formulas (F) .docx>
I
!
I !
'I
I
I
30f3
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009296
Re: Oil budget: FRTG values do not support using an "average" flow ...
Subject: Re: Oil budget: FRTG values do not support using an "average" flow value
From: Mark K 80gge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:23:10 -0500
CC: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>
From the perspective of the NIC's Flow Rate Technical Group, the official government estimate is currently given
as a range ... 35,000 - 60,000. See the press release at (http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.comlgo/doc
12931/661583/). Because this range is derived from different methodologies, each with distinct advantages and
biases, it would not be scientifically justifiable to take the average of these two figures and call that the "likely"
flow rate. So the FRTG position is to stick with a range - not an average. Ultimately, and hopefully soon, BP will
be capturing and measuring the full flow more precisely, at which time we will get a number.
In an earlier press release (http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.comlgo/doc/2931/627011/) there was
reference to a "best estimate" of 25,000 to 30,000 BPD. HOWEVER, the newer range estimate supersedes
that.
Mark
Mark Sogge
2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ.. 86001
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

Mark. WMller@noaa.gov, Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
06124/201010:47 AM
Re: Oil budget
In reviewing the current document, we need someone to make an official call on how we structure the scenarios
in the Web tool. Bill and the Team seem to be pushing for the importance of a "likely" scenario that
generally uses an average of the "best" and "worst" factors for things like natural dispersion effectiveness.
We need to know whether or not we should add that scenario to the tool. If it is available as a report, we
need to know how it should be titled. Also, just because it is available, does not necessarily mean that it
needs to be used in any or all cases of the reports contributing to some information sharing process.
What is the most appropriate group to make the official call on this issue?
<. (
<.
~---<. ( ( ----<. ( (<

Sky Bristol
{<-~~-<.

>
>
>
>
lof2
Sky, fyi
-------------------------Martha N. Garcia, Chief of Staff
9/27/20102:07 PM
009297
Re: Oil budget: FRTG values do not support using an "average" flow ...
> 301 National Center

> Reston, VA 20192
> mgarcia@usgs.gov
> 703 648-6960
> 703 648-4039 fax
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)
>
>
>
>
Original Message
> From: Bill.Lehr
> Sent: 06/24/2010 07:04 AM MST
> To: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>; Martha Garcia; Mark
Sogge; Victor Labson; Amy McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>; Nathalie Valette-Silver <Nathalie.ValetteSilver@noaa.gov>
> Subject: Oil budget
>
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> As promised, oil budget write-up. Note that some of the numbers have 9hanged slightly due to input from the
listed experts.
>
> Bill Lehr
> NOAA/ORR
>
formulas (F) .docx>
20f2
9/27/20102:07 PM
009298
Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRICIMEASURE OF ACTMTY - Jtule 17 S ...
Subject: Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY - June 17 State Data Sheets
DWH
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:39:10 -0400
To: "Brown ,Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>
CC: Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>,
Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
Can we add a column for tar balls. A modest density of tar balls at sea can dramaticaly impact
the available oil budget. Some of the FRTG folks theorize that there are about 15 tarballs in
each football-field-sized patch of seasurface per day, essentially doubling the oil budget.
Unfortunately, the tar balls are essentially invisible to AVIRIS. If people are picking them up on
the beach and counting them, then they are measurable. It would be good to know that number.
When do people start finding them? And where? What sort of oil are they associated with and in
what sort of numbers?
.
Dr McNutt mentioned this to Admiral Neffenger and Peter Gautier today. Peter said that no
tarballs have been found in Louisiana, but they have been seen in Alabama and Florida. The
ones tested have not been from this spill. This suggests that tarballs take a long time to form.

Reston, VA 20192
fax
mga rcia@usgs.gov
-----Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil wrote: ----To: "Martha Garcia" <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, "Mark Miller - NOAA" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Sent by: Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil
Date: 06/24/2010 11 :33AM
NIC-IASG
Sent: Wednesday, June 16 1 2010 9:56 PM
Cc: Greene, Lawrence CDRi Brown, Baron CDR; Ormes, David
10f3
9/27/20102:07 PM
009299
Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTMTY - June 17 S...

Sent:
To:
Wallace, Sara LTi LaBrec, Ronald CAPTi Gould{ Austin CAPT; Fedor{ Mark
CDR; Wallace, Sara LT; Kelley, Brian CAPTi Grawe, William; Greene, Lawrence CDR;
Cash, James CAPTi Brown{ Baron CDRi LaBrec, Ronald CAPTi Mark Miller - NOAA
Subject:
Sheets DWH
at the lowest level. Thank you to all for a reasonable and quick solution to
the near-term need.
The column
cubic yard~ of contaminated debris/oily water removed." This was discussed with
the UAC and
are able to meet this metric requirement.
CAPT W
National Incident Commander's DC Staff
202-372-1736
Solangei Worst, Nicholas LTi Hein, Julia CDR; Becker, Elizabeth CDR; Moland,
Mark CDR
RDML Neffenger,
category: "Spot/Reconnaissance", "Spray" (dispersants), and "Logistics." Working
with the UAC, we have determined that sortie #'s by employment category will be
The column
vir Sara
LT Sara Wallace
20f3
9/27/20102:07 PM
009300
Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTMTY - June 17 S...
300
9/27/20102:07 PM
009301
Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRlC/MEASURE OF ACTMTY - June 17 S ...
Subject: Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY - June 17 State Data Sheets
DWH
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 201013:11:52 -0400
To: Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Baron CDR Brown <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>
CC: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>, Mark K
Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
Baron, do not forward this email. I'll provide additional info after the mass bal presentation
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov

From: Martha N Garcia
Sent: 06/24/2010 12:39 PM EDT
To: "Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>
Cc: "Mark Miller - NOAA" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; Marcia McNutt; Mark Sogge; Victor Labson
Subject: Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY - June 17 State Data Sheets DWH
Can we add a column for tar balls. A modest density of tar balls at sea can dramaticaly impact
the available oil budget. Some of the FRTG folks theorize that there are about 15 tarballs in
each football-field-sized patch of seasurface per day, essentially doubling the oil budget.
Unfortunately, the tar balls are essentially invisible to AVIRIS. If people are picking them up on
the beach and counting them, then they are measurable. It would be good to know that number.
When do people start finding them? And where? What sort of oil are they associated with and in
what sort of numbers?
Dr McNutt mentioned this to Admiral Neffenger and Peter Gautier today. Peter said that no
tarballs have been found in Louisiana, but they have been seen in Alabama and Florida. The
ones tested have not been from this spill. This suggests that tarballs take a long time to form.

Reston, VA 20192
gov
-----Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil wrote: -----
10f3
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009302
Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTMTY - Jtme 17 S...
To: "Martha Garcia" <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, "Mark Miller - NOAA" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

Date: 06/24/2010 11 :33AM

Cc: Greene, Lawrence CDR; Brown, Baron CDRi Ormes, David
Sent:
To:
Wallace, Sara LT; LaBrec, Ronald CAPTi Gould, Austin CAPT; Fedor, Mark
CDRi Wallace, Sara LTi Kelley, Brian CAPT; Grawe, William; Greene, Lawrence CDR;
Cash, James CAPT; Brown, Baron CDR; LaBrec, Ronald CAPT; Mark Miller - NOAA
Subject:
Sheets DWH
at the lowest level. Thank you to all for a reasonable and quick solution to
the near-term need.
2) Shoreline Impacts on individual. State Sheets: a new column will be added to
the shoreline impacts that reflects CG effort/productivity to date. The column
CAPT W

Solange; Worst, Nicholas LT; Hein, Julia CDR; Becker, Elizabeth CDR; Moland,
Mark CDR
20f3
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009303
Re: FW: RE: SCAT J\1ETRIC/J\1EASURE OF ACTMTY - Jtme 17 S...
RDML Neffenger,
We have two changes to the June 17 briefing. slides:
category: "Spot/Reconnaissance", "Spray" (dispersants) , and "Logistics." Working
with the UAC, we have determined that sortie #'s by employment category will be
2) Shoreline Impacts on individual State Sheets; a new column will be added to
the shoreline impacts that reflects CG effort/productivity to date. The column
vir Sara
LT Sara Wallace
30f3
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009304
Re: [Fwd: Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRICfMEASURE OF ACTMTY ...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY - June 17 State Data Sheets DWH]
From: "alan.mearns" <Alan.Meams@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 201010:43:31 0700
CC: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>, Jerry Galt
@genwest.com>, Bill Conner
<William. Conner@noaa.gov> .
There should be plenty of tar balls on Louisiana shorelines on any given day, thanks to Charlie
Henry ... attached. You can play with his data in terms of football field units. He got background
densities of 9.6 tar balls per 50 m (linear) station in eastern LA and 40 per SOm (linear) station in
western LA.
Alan
unit of measure - tar balls/football field. No tarballs in LA? How long does it take to
. form a tarball?
! Interesting
j Mark
l
I Subject:
Original Message -------Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY

June 17 State Data Sheets DWH
! Date:.
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:39:10 -0400
: From:
Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gOv>
I To:
Brown,Baron CDR <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>
1 CC:
Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.Qov>, Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@uscs.gov>, Mark K Sogge
; , Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
I
--------
Can we add a colUmn for tar ballS. A modest density of tar balls at sea can dramaticaly impact the
available oil budget. Some of the FRTG folks theorize that there are about 15 tarballs in each
football-field-sized patch of seasurface per day, essentially doubling the oil budget. Unfortunately,
the tar balls are essentially invisible to AVIRIS. If people are picking them up on the beach and
counting them, then they are measurable. It would be good to know that number. When do people start
finding them? And where? What sort of oil are they associated with and in what sort of numbers?
Dr McNutt mentioned this to Admiral Neffenger and Peter Gautier today. Peter said that no tarballs have
been found in Louisiana, but they have been seen in Alabama and Florida. The ones tested have not been
from this spill. This suggests that tarballs take a long time to form.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________J
.'.!:
fax
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov <mailto:mgarcia@usgs.gov>
http://biology.usgS.90V <http://biology.usgs,gov/>
-----Baron.K,Brown@uscg.mil wrote: ----To: "Martha Garcia" <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, "Mark Miller - NOAA"
Date: 06/24/2010 11:33AM
Subject: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY - June 17 State
Data Sheets DWH
CDR Baron Brown, OSCG
NIC-IASG
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9;56 PM
Cc: Greene, Lawrence CDR; .Brown, Baron CDR; Ormes, David
1 of2
9/27/20102:07 PM
009305
Re: [Fwd: Re: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTMTY ...
Subject: FW: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY - June 17 State

Data Sheets DWH
Sent with Good (www.good.coml
Sent:
To:
Wallace, Sara LT; LaBree, Ronald CAPT; Gould, Austin
CAPT; Fedor, Mark CDR; Wallace, Sara LT; Kelley, Brian CAPT;
Grawe, William; Greene, Lawrence CDR; Cash, James CAPT; Brown,
Baron CDR; LaBree, Ronald CAPT; Mark Miller - NOAA
Subject:
RE: RE: SCAT METRIC/MEASURE OF ACTIVITY - June 17
State Data Sheets DWH
Looks like this meets the mail for Meaningful, repeatable, simple
and reportable at the lowest level. Thank you to all for a
reasonable and quick solution to the near-term need.
2) Shoreline Impacts on individual State Sheets: a new column
will be added to the shoreline impacts that reflects CG
effort/productivity to date. The column will be called "Removal
(cubic yards)" and the footnote will read "cumulative cubic yards
of contaminated debris/oily water removed." This was discussed
with the UAC and they are able to meet this metric requirement.
CAPT W
National Incident Commander's DC Staff

Cc: Wiedenhoeft, Paul CAPT; Gould, Austin CAPT; McKenna, Robert
CDR; Hubble, Solange; Worst, Nicholas LT; Hein, Julia CDR; Becker,
Elizabeth CDR; Moland, Mark CDR
RDML Neffenger,
1) We are reintroducing the aircraft data on the individual State
Data sheets from yesterday. Aircrafts will be broken out by #
sorties for each employment category: "Spot/Reconnaissance",
"Spray"(dispersants), and "Logistics." Working with the GAC , we
have determined that sortie #'s by employment category will be
2) Shoreline Impacts on individual State Sheets: a new column
will be added to the shoreline impacts that reflects CG
effort/productivity to date. The column will be called "Removal
(cubic yards)" and the footnote will read "cumulative cubic yards
of contaminated debris/oily water removed." This was discussed
with the UAC and they are able to meet this metric requirement.
vir Sara
LT Sara Wallace
'I
Content-Type:
application/pdf
Henry et al1993 MMS Tar Ball.pdf C
tEd'
b 64
onten nco '"g: ase
I .
2of2
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009306
Des Study
MMS93~0046
University Research Initiative
Characterization of Chronic Sources and

Impacts of Tar along the Louisiana Coast
-,
~-W~-S-~-A")
~
TEXAS
MISSISSIPPI
C ____?
Baton ,ouge
\ _...........,_
................
........."
'Corpus
.' . . . . . .
/ .. .....
r
0Jr.isti-
.,
~ "! ............ ,
. ~......
~::::.:
i
:
;:
!:
: :
\. .~ I.
I
"I
J.f
!:
...
.
"
TD
...... :':::;'::::;':::"'.."
;.... ... ....

............ '
........ .I"i!' ... .
..
-" -...... 100111 .......... .....
".
)....... :~.:'"
::::<............ .~OOIll. ....~::.:: ..:... :::~... j ..

'"
.. ' ".
.......ooeaa
......~.
'
Gulf of Mexico
.'
195
4
H46
1993
u.s. Department of the Interior

GuR of Mexico OCS Region
Cooperative Agreement
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
009307
OCS Study
MMS 93-0046
Characterization of Chronic Sources and

Impacts of Tar along the Loui-siana Coast
Authors
Charles B. Henry. Jr.

Paulene O. Roberts
Edward B. Overton
Institute for Environmental Studies
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
.-
, ....... '.,:
','
October 1993
Prepared under M MS Contract

14-35-0001-30470
by
150 Riverside Mall. Room 107
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801
Published by
u.s. Department of the Interior

Minerals Mangement Service
Gulf of Mexico OCS Region-
Cooperative Agreement
University Research Initiative .
'-.
009308
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared under contract between the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) and Louisiana State University, Institute for Environmental
Studies. This report has been reviewed by the MMS and approved 'for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and pOlicies of the Service, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. It
is, however, exempt from review and compliance with MMS editorial
standards.
REPORT AVAILABILITY
Extra copies of the report may be obtained from the Public Information Unit
(Mail Stop 5034) at the following address:
U.S. Department of the Interior
Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office
Attention: Public Information Unit (MS 5034)
1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard
New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394
Telephone Number: (504) 736-2519
CITATION
Suggested citation:
Henry, C.B., P.O. Roberts, E.B. Overton. 1993. Characterization of Chronic
Sources and Impacts of Tar Along the Louisiana Coast. U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS
Regional Office, New Orleans, La. OCS Study MMS 93-0046. 64 pp.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Diane Lindstedt, Louisiana Geological Survey, for
invaluable information on Louisiana's southern beaches and local contacts
and Dr. Barry Moser, LSU Experimental Statistics Program, for providing
assistance with the statistical techniques.
iii
009309
FOREWARD
This study originated from surveys of the western Louisiana coast during the
1990 T IV Mega Borg oil spill which occurred off the Texas coast near
Galveston. It was observed that a high density of tar balls and fresh oil patties
littered the predicted landfall beaches which caused considerable confusion
sorting out which oil was "background" and which was from the Mega Borg
spill for both response and damage assessment activities. Four random
samples of a "mystery" bIack oil at Holly Beach, Louisiana was collected and
returned to Louisiana State University for source-fingerprint analysis. All
four tar balls were nonmatches to the T IV Mega Borg and from unrelated
spills. Oil sourced from the T IV Mega Borg was collected on Louisiana
beaches, but this oil appeared as tiny reddish-brown tar balls and was difficult
to spot when intermixed with the more abundant background oil. As a result
of this observation, we became interested in the sources of the background tar.
No studies of the abundance, distribution, and source of stranded oil along
the Louisiana coast could be found, though reports for areas within the Gulf
of Mexico such as Texas and the Caribbean were available. This report may
well represent the first systematic study of tar ball deposition specific to
Louisiana. While many comb the beaches of Louisiana collecting sea shells
and curious objects that have drifted ashore, we spent much of 1992 walking
beaches, collecting curious objects of tar.; and applying detailed analytical
chemistry to determine from where did they come.
009310
ABSTRACT
Along the southern coast of Louisiana, nine beach stations, covering an
approximate distance of 200 miles between the farthest east and west stations,
were selected for collection of deposited pelagic tar and oil during 1992. There
existed an extreme difference in petroleum distribution, with 9.6 tar balls per
50 meter station in the east compared to 40 tar balls per station for the west.
The samples collected from these stations were analyzed by detailed GC/MS
and compared for similarities using a source-fingerprinting data synthesis
process. The data indicate a wide range of petroleum sources with
unweathered high paraffin and bimodal wax oils being the most abundant.
These are generally associated with bunker oilS and crude oil washings or
sludge discharges and represent 26% of the tar balls analyzed. An assessment
by detailed GC/MS characterization and source fingerprinting, utilizing
selective ion monitoring (SIM) was completed for 124 of the 528 samples
collected. The results indicated 18 sources with multiple occurrences and 47
unrelated sources of which 55% of the samples were sourced from the 18
multiple sources and 45% were from the unrelated sources. Ratio indexes
were compiled and processed by principle component and cluster analysis
algorithms to indicate or highlight the number of possible sources and the
chemical characteristics of the petroleum found.
vii
009311
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................xiii
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
Background ...".... ~ .. * * ............ " ......... '''' ................................................................ 1
Reported Abundance, Distribution, and Sources ........................................2
METIiODOLOGY . . ~ ...............................".......................................:........ :.....................................4
Site Selections ....................................................................................................... 4

Field Surveys and Sample Collection ............................................................6
Morphological Characterization .....................................................................6
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Analyses ..................................7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................... ~ ..........10
Field Results.........................................................................................................10
Tar Ball Numbers and Distribution...................................................10
Morphological Appearance .................................................................11
Abundance and Distribution ...............................................................15
Analytical Chemistry Results ..........................................................................15
Source Classifica tion ............................................................................. 15

Source-fingerprin ting ...........................................................................22
Index Cluster Plots .................................................................................31
Cluster and Principle Component Analyses ....................................31
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 34
RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................35
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................35
APPENDIX I
Source Indexes ............................... ,.................:.... ,. .............41
APPENDIX II
Principle Component Analyses ..................................49
ix
009312
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Station locations for stranded oil and tar survey,

1992.. ,. .................. "' ..............
f \I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f ............................................................................. t
Figure 2.
Histogram plot showing the distribution of tar balls

as classified by color ............................................................................... 12
Figure 3.
Histogram presentation of the contribution of organic

matter to the tar balls sampled ............................................................13
Figure 4.
Histogram presentation of the contribution of sand

to the tar balls sampled ......................................................................... 13
Figure 5.
Histogram presentation of the contribution of shell

fragments to the tar balls sampled ..................................................... 14
Figure 6.
Histogram presentation of tar ball pliability ....................................14
Figure 7.
Number of tar balls collected per station by sampling

period.................................................... ~ .......................................................16
Figure 8.
Comparison of the tar abundance in grams/station by

sampling period .................................................................................... 17
Figure 9.
TIC comparisons from samples classified as a high

aromatic to an unweathered paraffinic oil..:....................................20
Figure 10.
Comparison of the (m/e) 85 chromatographic profile

for dils classified as weathered bimodal wax and weathered
bimodal UCM .........................................................................................21
Figure 11.
Chromatographic comparison of the C-3 Phenanthrene

(ml e 220) for two samples identified as positive matches............23
Figure 12.

(rn/e 220) for two samples classified as a nonmatch ......................24
Figure 13.
Station distribution for sources identified with more

than three occurring samples..............................................................25
xi
009313
LIST OF FIGURES
(CONTINUED)
Figure 14.
Chromatographic comparison of the triterpanes and

hopanes (rn/ e 191) profiles for tar ball Source E to
a Kuwait crude oil sample ................................................................... 26
Figure 15.

hopanes (m/ e 191) profile for Kuwaiti AlBergan crude
oil and oil from the Arabian Gulf oil spill ....................................... 27
Figure 16.

hopanes (rn/e 191) profile for an Arabian light crude
oil and Basrah crude oil....................................................................... .28
Figure 17.
Comparisons of the North Slope crude reference oil

to a "typical" South Louisiana OCS production crude oil ............29
Figure 18.
Chromatographic comparison of the normal alkane

distribution of an Arabian light crude oil and the
unknown Source E suspected as being weathered sludge
discharge ..................................................................................................30
Figure 19.
Primary cluster plots of all 118 tar ball samples and 15

NSC reference. oils analyzed as a control.. ........................................32
xii
009314
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Target compounds for qualitative and semi-quantitative

assessment of tar ball samples by GC/MS...........................................8
Table 2.
Total tar ball accumulation comparison per beach station

and region ................................................................................................ 11
Table 3.
Classification comparison for total sample population

analyzed ........................................................................ ,................................... 19
xiii
009315
009316
INTRODUCTION
Background
Chronic beach oiling is potentially degrading to the ecological and social economic
interest of Louisiana. This preliminary study was designed to assess not only the
abundance of tar balls which have been observed on Louisiana Beaches, but more
specifically, their relationship to each other. Are the observed tar balls along the
Louisiana coast the result of small unrelated activities? Or, are they connected? The
focus of this study was the collection of preliminary data on coastal Louisiana tar
ball abundance and distribution. A goal was to develop a combination of field and
analytical methods for identifying chronic sources of coastal marine petro]eum
pollution which can aid in coastal resource management.
Why study tar balls? Their presence indicates that oil had been spilled or released
during the recent past resulting in possible impacts to marine resources. It is
generally accepted that oil pollution is a particular threat to immature marine
animals, i.e., eg~ larvae, and juvenile (RPI International, 1987). Exposure to oil
pollution may have the following adverse effects: reduced growth rate, changes in
normal physiology, and death. Many species of marine organism release epipelagic
eggs and larvae which are at high risk to surface oil slicks. Petroleum
contamination of Louisiana's coastal resources may result in additional
anthropogenic stresses on already stressed commercial and sport fisheries. In
addition, oil contamination on beaches detract from recreational uses such as sun
bathing and surf fishing. Stranded oil and tar is a potential indicator of this
unreported oil spillage.
Once oil is discharged into the marine environment it undergoes various physical
and chemical interactions which include spreading, drifting, dispersion,
evaporation, dissolution, emu1sification, photochemical degradation, and
biodegradation (Blumer et a1. 1973; Butt et a1. 1986; Mackay and McAuliffe, 1988.),
These affects on bulk oil composition are collectively called weathering and may
result in the formation of residual ~tar or tar balls. Factors which influence the
formation of tar balls include the weather conditions, the environment, and most
importantly, the type of oil. Light petroleum products and light crude oils such as
many South Louisiana production oils spread rapidly and are often removed from
the ocean surface by dispersion during high sea state conditions. The very heavy
crude oils, refined heavy bunker oils, and other petroleum products with high pour
points are slow to spread, exposing little surface area for the natural degradation
processes. These heavier oils are the most persistent in the environment and often
found stranded as lumps of tar. The formation of a stable water-in-oil
emulsification may enhance the process of tar ball formation.
When spilled oil is weathered to the state of a tar baIt the oil is generally considered
less acutely toxic than the fresh crude oil or the refined petroleum it was derived.
This is due to the loss of the more water soluble mono- and di aromatic
1
009317
hydrocarbons (AH), such as benzenes and naphthalenes, by evaporation and

dissolution processes. Yet, by the loss of these easily weathered components from
the bulk oil, the remaining oil is actually enriched with the possibly carcinogenic
and chronically toxic 3, 4, and 5 ring AH such as chrysene and benzo(a)pyrene.
These toxic constituents of weathered tar residues are generally ~ess available to
marine animals unless ingested. Stranded oil and mousse is often washed on and
off beaches by tides and storm currents. Weathered heavy oils are often "stickytacky" in nature and readily pick up extraneous beach material such as sand and
shell fragments resulting in reduced tar ball buoyancy. When the density on the tar
ball is greater than sea waters, the tar ball sinks and is transported to the benthic
environment (Iliffe and Knap, 1979). Another physical process is the interactions
with heavy seas and surf which tend to reduce the physical size of tar balls making
them smaller, enhancing the natural rate of biodegradation but also creating sizes
more easily ingested by marine species.
Studies in the gulf of Mexico have shown that endangered sea turtles have been
affected (possibly killed) as a result of ingesting tar; the stomachs of dead sea turtles
often contain tar balls or tar pellets (Carr, 1987). These concerns postponed the
release of juvenile hawksbill sea turtles from the Nation Manne Fisheries Service
facility in Galveston, Texas during the T IV Mega Borg oil spill due to fear that the
year old turtles would feed on (ingest) the smaller tar balls resulting from the oil
spill. This fear was due to the strong similarity between pellet food to the tar baIls
derived from the T IV Mega Borg spill.
The analytical methods used in this study were developed for source-fingerprinting
spilled crude oil and refined petroleum products during oil spill response activities
to determine if a spilled oil is compositional the same, and therefore, a positive
match to a suspected or known source (e.g., a leaking tanker or pipeline). The
fundamental aspects of the analytical methods used are widely accepted in the
scientific literature and have been used in our laboratory for both oil spill response
activities and fate and effects studies. The matchnonmatch determinations are
generally derived from quantitative comparisons of the chromatographic profiles of
specific AH and petroleum biomarke.r compounds such as the steranes and hopanes
as well as indexes derived from specific compound ratios and index cluster plots. In
this study, data synthesis was augmented with statistical cluster and principal
component analyses in an attempt to develop statistical approaches to aid in
identification of related tar balls.
Reported Abundance, Distribution, and Sources of Tar Balls

Scientific publications reporting the abundance and distribution of tar balls on
beaches along the nor~hern Gulf Coast appears limited. Currently, this data is the
only information spec1"fic to Louisiana. Numerous studies were conducted by Texas
A&M University during the 1970'5, but referenced as project reports and not easily
acquired. The only published data reviewed on Texas beaches reported only the
characterization of sources, not abundance values. The studies in Texas suggest
009318
three primary sources or types of oil found on the beaches: weathered crude oil,
55.3%; tanker sludge, 33.3%; and fuel oil residues, 7.6% (Geyerl 1980). The source
information is of specific interest to this study. Current or historical abundance and
distribution information for the northern Gulf of Mexico area is needed for a
regional comparison to Louisiana beaches. Some evidence has been reported that
suggest 10-50% of the tar observed in the eastern Gulf of Mexico waters off Florida is
sourced from tar balls which have entered the northern Gulf of Mexico through the
Yucatan Straits and the Gulf Loop Current (Van Vleet et al. 1984).
Scientific publications on the abundance of tar balls in the Caribbean region from
the 1970's to present was readily available (Sleeter et al. 1976; Georges and Oostdam,
1983; Burton, 1987; Botello et al. 1991; Jones and Bacon, 1990; Lizarraga-Partida et al.
1990). A major study in the 'Wider Caribbean' region, which includes the Gulf of
Mexico, assessed the abundance and distribution of tar balls and was supported by
the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission's Regional Subcommission for
the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions. Greater than 9000 data points between 1979
and 1987 were collected for this study in an effort to assess tar on beaches, pelagic tar,
and dissolved/dispersed hydrocarbons (Atwood et al. 1987). From these surveys,
beaches that contain concentrations of tar approaching 100 g/m were considered
unusable for tourist purposes. A wide range of values have been reported in the
Caribbean with many beaches exceeding the 100 g/m mark. It was estimated that as
much as 50% of the oiling was derived from tank cleaning and ballast discharge
within the region; additional inputs were suspected to be derived from outside
sources transported into the region through the North Atlantic gyre system.
Outside the Gulf of Mexico, other studies within the U.S. have provided some tar
ball abundance data for the Atlantic coast and California but the majority of these
'sfudies were conducted in the early 1970's. International interest in tar ball beach
pollution has been continuous since 1970's, providing more recent data. Bermuda
has received a great deal of study over the last 20 years (Morris, 1971; Sleeter et a1.
1974; Iliffe and Knap, 1979; Knap et al. 1980; Smith and Knap, 1985) providing
quantitative surveys of beach tars. One study (Knap et a1. 1980) has shown a decline
in the abundance of beached tar wltlc:::h roughly corresponds to decreases iii marine
discharges from improved tanker operations during this period. Quantitative tar
ball studies in Oman have reported some of the highest values in the world;
'standing stocks' of tar balls were found between 5 and 2325 g/m along its coastline
(Burns et al. 1982). Tar ball studies in Nigeria suggest that most of the oiling is a
result of drilling operations and oil tanker terminal operations (Asuquo, 1991).
Open ocean studies for pelagic tar ball distribution in the Pacific suggested that, like
many beach surveys, tanker traffic and specifically tanker sludge discharges are the
primary source of tar balls (Wong et al. 1976).
The occurrence of tar on beaches is not new. Natural sources of oU such as riverine
and ocean seeps have been releasing petroleum into the marine environment for
millions of years; it would not be unreasonable to suspect that a fraction of this seep
oil is being transported to and deposited on coastal shorelines. The amount of oil
3
009319
released to the ocean has unquestionably increased as a result of anthropogenic

activities such as petroleum transportation and on and offshore oil
exploration/production. No baseline study, to our knowledge, has been completed
that would aid in estimating what the concentration of tar was prior to the
contribution from man's activities; therefore, any data gathered at this point in time
must be considered as a contribution from both natural and anthropogenic
activities. This report documents information gathered as part of a preliminary
assessment of the abundance, distribution, and sources of stranded tar balls along
the Louisiana coast. The initial field studies began on 21 March, 1992 and were
completed on 29 September, 1992.
MElHODOLOGY
This study involved both a field and laboratory component. The study area was
restricted to beaches along the Louisiana coast. All of the analytical analyses were
conducted at the Institute for Environmental Studies (IES) at Louisiana State
University.
Site Selections
Prior to site selection, Parish maps, NOAA coastal charts, USGS topographical maps,
pervious research on beach trash collection and coastal residents were consulted.
The following criteria was used in site selection: 1) easy access, 2} relatively
unpopulated area, 3) low beach maintenance by human activities. Several beach
surveys or beach walks were conducted to ground-truth sites for potential selection.
In the end, 9 sites were selected: 6 along the western and 3 along the east/central
Louisiana coastline. For ease of identification, the study regions are defined simply
as east and west. The west sites were located from Martin's Beach to Rockerfeller
Refuge. The east sites were located at Pass Fourchon to Grand Isle. The majority of
the beaches were within a short walking distance from maintained roads, with the
one exception being Rockerfeller Refuge (RR) which was located within the
Rockerfeller Wildlife Refuge in Cameron Parish and accessible only after a 3 mile
hike along the levee. The 5 remaining west sites were: Rutherford Beach (RB) ,
Holly Beach (HB), Old Pavillion (OP) along highway 82, Constance Beach (CD), and
Martin's Beach (MB). The 3 east sites are Grand Isle (GO, Elmer's Island (EI), and
Pass Fourchon (PF). Figure 1 identifies the general locations of the selected sites.
The distance between the west sites, from Martin's Beach to Holly Beach was 13
miles. Beginning from Martin's Beach, at mile 14 marker of highway 82, Constance
beach station was approximately 6 miles distant, Old Pavilion was 11 miles, and
Holly Beach was 13 miles.
The stations were semi~randomly selected within each study site. A fixed marker,
either natural or manmade, was used as a site landmark. From this landmark, the
station distance and direction (east or west from the landmark) was randomly
selected.
4
Louisiana Coastline Stations

o
50 MILES
I ' i i i I '.
50 KILOMETERS
009320
U1
G'f.li,,c-
ROCKEFEllER REFUGE
o~
lTTHERFORO BEACH
OllY BEACH
LO PAVILION
CONSTANCE BEACH
MARTIN'S BEACH
ElMER'S ISLAND
PASS FOURCHON
Figure 1. Station locations for stranded oil and tar survey, 1992
009321
Once selected, the station was marked in the northeast and northwest corners by
flagged stakes and the distance from the landmark was recorded. All stations were a
50 meter-wide swath perpendicular to the shoreline which extended to the upper
beach storm berm or beach stabilizing material, such as rip-rap and sand bags. The
station widths ranged from 10 to 75 meters. Each station was further subdivided
during sampling into backshore and foreshore regions; the backshore region is
defined as the area behind any recent tidal debris lines including the storm benn
area, while the foreshore area included the high tide debris line down to the waters
edge. Photographs were taken of each site and of any interesting findings, and are
archived at IES.
Field Surveys and Sample Collection

Tar ball collection was performed by systematically walking each station, collecting
all tar balls which were greater than a few millimeters in size, and wrapping each
individually in aluminum foil. Sampling was performed only during low tide or
falj.ing tidal conditions. Pits were dug between the high and low tide lines to
document and collect any subsurface oiling found. All samples were stored in
coolers while in the field. Upon return to lES, each sample was logged into the
laboratory and given a unique identification number followed by refrigeration
storage until morphological descriptions and GC/MS analyses were completed. The
sampling was conducted during two seasonal periods. The two sampling periods
were at the beginning of Spring and the end of Summer. The Spring sampling
began on 21 March, 1992 and was completed on 1 May, 1992. The end of Summer
sampling began on 24 August, 1992 and was completed on 29 September, 1992.
Morphological Characterization
Visual descriptions and physical characterization were made for each sample
collected. Morphological characterizations included: colo!, extraneous material,
texture, pliability, core hardness, diameter, and individual tar ball weight
measurements. The color categories determined were black, brown, dark gray, dark
green, amber, and dark red. Extraneous materials were classified as a percentage of
organic, sand, and shell by visual-appearance only. Occasionally, other materials
such as plastics, feathers, and hypodermic needles were found incorporated in the
tar balls and noted. The pliability classification was judged and ranked from 0 to 5 by
the extent the tar ball would bend when manual pressure was applied. A value Qf 0
represents tar ball that was solid and without any pliability, while 5 indicated that no
force beyond gravity was required for the material to bend or flow at ambient
laboratory temperature. This pliability characteristic can be related to some degree to
the residual oil's pour-point and provide insight to the extent of weathering. Each
tar ball was cut in half to determine core hardness. The classifications were soft
(beads of fresh oi1), medium (past-like), and hard. All these descriptions were used
to develop a general classification of the oil and to determine the gross amount of
oil found at each station.
009322
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Analyses

The GC/MS analysis provides highly selective source~fingerprinting information as
well as compound specific quantitative results for specific aromatic hydrocarbons
that are potential sources of stress to shoreline communities. Fingerprinting is a
term used to describe the analytical process of characterizing a petroleum sample
and comparing the results to a known crude oil or petroleum product to determine
if the sample is characteristically the same and, therefore, possibly from the same
source. These target compounds utilized are also useful for monitoring oil
weathering and biodegradation. Petrogenic (oil or petroleum derived) and
pyrogenIc (combustion derived) AH are monitored as well as alkanes, sulfur
heterocycles, sterane, triterpanes, and hopanes. Table 1 identifies the 43 components
(either individual compounds or isomer groups) and the primary ion monitored for
each.
Mass spectrometry has long been used by many researchers to detect the presence of
oil and to study oil weathering processes, such as evaporative loss, photolytic and
biological degradation, and fate of oil spilled into the environment (Overton et al.
1980; Kennicutt, 1988; Michel et aI. 1991; Henry and Overton, 1993bi and many
others). Information derived from published papers, in addition to years of actual
experience analyzing and interpreting oil contaminated samples in support of oil
spill response activities with NOAA, supports GC/MS as currently the most
powerful tool for detailed chemical analysis of crude oil and refined products.
Crude oil is a very complex mixture of compounds that cannot be completely
resolved by gas chromatography, but by using a highly selective detector such as a
mass spectrometer in conjunction with a high resolution chemical separation
system (the GC), we are able to discriminate specific target compounds from the bulk
oil. Typically for crude oils, the target AH represent less than 2% of the bulk oil
composition by weight, and many of the target analytes are present at the low ppm
level in whole oil. Detailed chemical analyses of oil and proper interpretation of the
derived data is not a trivial task. The method was designed to accomplish the
following tasks, detect the presence of oil, compositional analysis, compound
sp~cific quantification, and source-fingerprinting.
The interpretation of the data produced requires a high degree of knowledge in
practical GC/MS, petroleum chemistry, and environmental chemistry. Many of the
compounds of interest have no standards commercially available and identification
is often based on extensive qualitative MS analyses that occurred during the method
development process. These selected compounds were determined to provide the
most useful information and could not be replaced by other compounds with
standards. The majority of these target constituents exist as complex mixtures of
isomers such as the C-3 alkylated phenanthrenes which are quantified as a single
component by this approach.
009323
Table 1.
Target compounds for qualitative and semi-quantitative

assessment of tar ball samples by GC/MS.
compound
quant.. ion
alkanes (nClO thru nC31)

decalin*
A-decalin
B decalin
C- decalin
naphthalene
D- naphthalenes
E- naphthalenes
F- naphthalenes
G- naphthalenes
fluorene
H- fluorenes
1- fluorenes
J. fluorenes
dibenzothiophene
K- dibenzothiophenes
L- dibenzothiophenes
85
138
152
166
180
128
142
156
170
184
166
180
194
208
184
198
212
~-ctibenzotlriophenes
226
178
phenanthrene
N~ phenanthrenes
0- phenanthrenes
p- phenantlu"enes
naphthobenzothiophene
Q- naphthobenzothiophenes
R- naphthobenzothiophenes
S- naphthobenzothiophenes
fluoranthrene/pyrene
T- pyrenes
U- pyrenes
chrysene
V - chrysenes
W - chrysenes
hopanes (191 family)*
sterenes (217 farnily)*
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
benzo(e)pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene
perylene
indeno(g.h.i)pyrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
benzo(1,2Scd)perylene
192 .
206
220
234
248
262
276
202
216
230
228
242
256
191
217
252
252
252
252
252
276
278
276
---------------------------------------------------------* Used primarily for source-fingerprinting and generally not quantified.

All of the above chromatographic proflles are used for source-fingerprinting in
addition to indexes derived from the quantitative data.
009324
In preparation for analysis, tar ball samples were split open to expose the fresher oil
beneath the exterior, and 0.2 to 0.5 g of this less weathered oil was taken for
extraction. One to two grams of sodium sulfate was added, followed by 8 mL of
hexane. The vial was then sealed and sonnicated for ten minutes and stored for 8 to
24 hours to allow the asphaltenes/residuum to fall from suspension. Prior to
analysis, the prepared tar ball extracts were spiked with internal standards and
injected by a Hewlett-Packard 7673A auto-sampler into a Hewlett Packard 5890 Gc.
This instrument was configured with a DB-5 high resolution capillary column
directly interfaced to a Hewlett Packard 5971 MS. The GC flow rates, etc. were
optimized to provide the required degree of separation (i.e., phytane and !l-C18
should be baseline resolved and pristane and n;C17 should be near baseline
resolved). The GC was operated in the temperature program mode with an initial
column temperature of 55 C for 3 min. then increased to 2900 C at a rate of 5
CImino and held at the upper temperature for 15 min. The injection temperature
was set to 2500 C and only high-temp, low thermal bleed septa were used. The
interface to the MS was maintained at 2900 C. All gasses used were of the highest
purity available.
The MS was operated in the Multiple Ion Detection mode (MID) to maximize the
detection of several trace constituents in crude oil. The instrument was operated
such that the selected ions for each acquisition window are scanned at a rate greater
than 1.5 scans/sec. At the start of an analysis period, the MS was tuned to PFrBA. A
daily quantification standard and a reference oil (North Slope Crude Oil from the
T /V Exxon Valdez) was analyzed prior to analysis of the extracted tar balls. An
internal standard mix composed of naphthalene-d8, anthracene-dIO, chrysene-d12,
and perylene-d12 was coinjected with each analysis to monitor the instruments
performance during each run.
The data was processed and interpreted at several levels. First, a comparison of the
extracted ion chromatographic profiles determines if any of the samples containing
oil appear to be related. This process compares the relative composition and extent
of weathering for each sample analyzed, providing a detailed jnterpretation of the
alkylated PNAs series, sterane, and--triterpane distribution patterns. In this study all
tar ball samples analyzed by GC/MS were initially compared within their sampling
period; the Spring samples compared to the Spring population analyzed and the
Summer samples compared the Summer population. After completion of sourcefingerprinting by sampling period, all analyzed samples were compared as a total
population for a total number of sources. The second level of interpretation was a
comparison of source-fingerprint indexes, or ratios to determine possible source
correIa tion.
009325
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As expected, we did find tar balls along the Louisiana coast. A total of 528 samples of
stranded oil and tar was collected within the two sampling periods for the nine
study stations (considerably more than expected). This section has been subdivided
into field observations and laboratory results. The field observations describe when
the field activities occurred, the abundance and distribution of tar balls observed,
their morphological appearance, and any interesting observations made during the
beach surveys. The laboratory information presents the source classification of the
tar balls collected, source-correlations, synthesized GC/MS results, index cluster
plots, and statistical analysis.
Field Results
The initial beach surveys were intended to identify study stations and were
completed by 2 April, 1992. The first round of sampling was completed by 1 May,
1992; these samples are identified as the Spring samples. Station RR was sampled
twice on 22. March and 1 May, 1992; 6 tar ball. samples were collected in March
compared to 14 in May, yet only May data was included in the abundance and
distribution comparisons. The RR station was the first created and therefore the
learning station to calibrate the sampler's eyes for spotting partially buried tar balls.
The end of Summer sampling period was complicated by the occurrence of
Hurricane Andrew on 24 August, 1992. Andrew struck the Louisiana coast near the
Atchafalaya Delta, destroying many natUral and manmade landmarks. The western
stations MB, CB, OP, HB were sampled before the hurricane on 23 and 24 August;
the remaining western stations RB and RR were sampled three weeks after the
storm along with the eastern stations EI and GI. The PF station was inaccessible after
the hurricane due to bridge and road damage. No Summer samples were collected
at PF. A second Summer sample was collected approximately one month after
hurricane Andrew at station MB on 29 September, as a qualitative observation to
determine if the tar ball deposition rates were similar to prestorm values; 58 tar
balls were collected in August and.?9 were collected in September. The Sep.tember
samples were included in this study for general information only and were not used
in the abundance and distribution calculations. All sampling was completed by 29
September, 1992.
Tar Ball Numbers and Distribution. The sampling results suggest no Significant
difference between the Spring and Summer sampling periods. A total of 275
samples were collected during the Spring sampling and 253 were collected for the
Summer. The abundance of tar balls collected between the east and west stations
was significant. A total of 480 samples were collected in the west compared to 48 in
the east. This can be expressed as 40 tar balls/station in the west compared to 9.6 tar
balls/station in the east for the total number of 528 samples collected in 1992. Table
2 provides a summary of the number of tar samples collected by station, collection
period, and beach zone. Between the backshore and foreshore beach zones, there
10
009326
were more tar balls collected in the upper beach region than the lower with 18.8
backshore tar balls/station compared to 12.2 foreshore tar balls/station. This can be
attributed to tar balls stranded in the supra-tidal zone during storm events and
extreme high tides and storm events and becoming stranded in the supratidal zone.
The lower volume of foreshore tar balls is due in part to their being frequently
removed by normal tidal activity.
The total number of tar balls found at each station indicates a distinct trend of
deposition along the Louisiana shoreline. The number of samples collected
between the Spring and Fall sampling periods indicates a shift in the stations with
the most abundant tar balls, but since the number of samplings was only two, these
differences are not considered statistical. From the Spring sampling data, it appears
that the distribution of stranded tar balls was more abundant towards the western
most stations. The Summer sampling data were also biased toward the west
stations, but distribution was apparently more random.
Table 2.
Total tar ball accumulation comparison per beach station and region.
Spring Sampling
Backshore
Foreshore
West Stations
MB
CB
OP
HB
RB
RR
Totals
Summer Sampling
Foreshore
Backshore
57
39
45
41
11
16
13
4
13
15
3
10
139
39
10
6
50
29
15
4
14
4
25
109
154
78
4 ".
Not Sampled
3
10
13
91
East Stations
PF
EI
GI
Totals
14
2
3
19
1
8
Not Sampled
0
8
8
Sampling Total
158
117
162
13
Morphological Almearance. The tar balls collected ranged in size from one mm in
diameter to 300 mm. A wide gradation of colors were observed and each tar ball was
classified as black, brown, dark grey, dark green, amber (yellow to yellow /brown),
and dark red. Greater than 80% of the tar balls collected were black in appearance as
shown by the histogram plot in Figure 2. Brown was the next significant color and
represented approximately 10% of the samples. The remaining colors were less than
11
009327
5% of the total. Color often suggests an oil type. Many of the dark green and amber
tar balls appeared to be old globs of a heavy grease or lube oil. The pitch black lumps
of oil appear to be sourced either from high pour-point bunker oils or other refined
products derived from heavy petroleum residuum. Brown tar balls often suggest oil
which has been oxidized and moussed during the weathering process; often these
represent spilled crude oils.
Many of the samples collected contained extraneous matter including organic debris
(plant stems, seeds, seaweed, etc.), sand, and shell fragments. These observations are
not unusual. Sticky-tacky oil floating on the water's surface and repeated strandings
often result in the accumulation of organic debris and beach substrate. The potential
for extraneous material to become incorporated in the tar ball is a function of
physical weathering processes as well as the physical/chemical composition of the
spilled oil. Very high pour-point oils do not easily spread and are limited to surface
encrustations only. Figures 3, 4, and 5 present the relative contribution of organic
matter, sand and shell fragments to the entire tar ball population studied. Organic
debris is a very ubiquitous feature in the marine environment, as both pelagic
material and through beach erosion, but not frequently found within the samples.
Sand was the most predominant extraneous material encountered and was found in
greater than 80% of the tar balls collected. These percentage values represent
qualitative assessments only. Shell was not as frequently found as sand which is
consistent with the dist~ibution of beach substrates; sandy beaches are more
numerous than shell beaches along the northern Gulf of Mexico. Of our selected
study stations, only RR had a high percentage of shell fragments associated with the
beach substrate.
100
Vl
80
r:c
60
..J
..J
0::
;::
t;
~
40
20
0
BLACK
Figure 2.
BROWN DK. GREY DK. GREEN AMBER
DK. RED
Histogram plot showing the distribution of tar balls as classified by

color.
Each tar ball was also characterized for its pliabiHty. Pliability is generally associated
with the physical/chemical composition of the spilled oil and the extent of
12
009328
weathering which has occurred. Highly weathered tar balls tend to become
nonpliable, often brittle or very difficult to break. These pliability characterizations
were qualitative only. Each sample coHeeted was rated from 0 to 5; a rating score of 0
is nonplaible and nonbreakable using normal hand pressure while a score of 5
represents stranded tar that was almost fluid. A majority of the tar balls sampled
were ranked as 3, representative of tar pieces that can bend without breaking. Less
than 10% of the samples collected were either nonpliable or very fluid.
100
~
IX:!
~u..
90
80
70
60
SO
40
30
20
10
0
0-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
PERCENT ORGANIC MAITER
Figure 3.
...J
<
IX:!
r::G
Histogram presentation of the contribution of organic matter to the tar

balls sampled.
100
90
80
70
60
<
50
C5
40
30
E-~
20
10
a
0-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
PERCENT SAND
Figure 4.
Histogram presentation of the contribution of sand to the tar balls

sampled.
13
009329
100
90
en
80
a:l
70
60
50
40
30
....l
....l
~
~
~
0
1ft.
20
10
0
21-40
0-20
61-80
41-60
81-100
PERCENT SHELL
~igure
5.
:i<
c.'Q
1ft.
Histogram presentation of the contribution of shell fragments to the tar

ball sampled.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
RANGE
Figure 6.
Histogram presentation of tar ball pliability. Pliability was rated from 0

to 5; 0 is a hard, nonpliable piece of tar and a score of 5 is stranded tar
that is almost fluid oil. Most of the tar balls were classified as 3, or
easily bent under slight hand pressure.
14
009330
Abundance and Distribution. The weight distribution is a function of the amount

of oil and the amount of adsorbed material. As indicated by the morphological
characterizations, numerous samples contained sand and other extraneous debris.
The percentage of weight contributed from debris (not oil) could possibly account for
50% of the weight of some samples. It is practically impossible to remove these
induded materials; therefore, the weight values presented are over estimations of
the true values.
A similar trend was observed in the total tar ball weight collected between the west
and east stations that was noted for total number of tar balls. A total of 4416.42 g
were collected in west compared to 627.65 g in the east during the Spring, 1992
sampling period, or 736.07 g/ station in the west compared to 209.22 g/ station in the
east. A similar trend was observed during the Summer, 1992; 4573.6 g in the west
compared to 125.2 g collected in the east, or 762.27 g/ station and 62.60 g/ station,
respectively. MB and OP consistently showed the highest abundance of tar by
weight while EI and Gl consistently showed the lowest abundance of tar by weight.
Figure 7 shows a histogram comparison of the abundance and distribution of the tar
collected during the Spring and Summer, 1992.
Analytical Chemistry Results

A higher number of tar balls were collected than originally anticipated. The study
plan proposed to analyze 100 tar balls. In a random selection process, 122 tar ball
samples were selected for GC/MS source-fingerprint analysis. Of these 122 samples
analyzed by GC/MS, 4 samples were unsuitable for source-fingerprint
characterization due to the apparent lack of target constituents. The GC/MS data for
each of the remaining 118 samples were classified as to the type of oil residue,
source-fingerprinted to differentiate the number of sources represented, treated by
cluster plot analysis and statistical analyses.
Source Classification. The classification scheme presented in this study utilized the
GC/MS data to characterize the oil present in each sample. Chromatographic data
was qualitatively interpreted and classified as follows:
1) Relatively unweathered, high aromatic. Oils classified into this category
were identified by a nC-18/phytane ratio of greater than 1 and were highly enriched
with target AHs. Oils in this classification are often representative of slightly
weathered refined blended heavy fuel oils.
2} Relatively unweathered, high paraffin. Oils classified into this category
were identified by a nC-18/phytane ratio of greater than 1 and were enriched with
normal paraffins between nC-lS and nC-33 often with the most abundant normal
paraffin being nC-19. Oils in this classification have high pour-points and many
may be representative of heavy fuel oils.
15
009331
100
~
...J
SPRING 1992
<
cc
80
60
tf..
Cl::
40
(.1;j
cc
~
:z
20
0
MB
CB
OP
HB
RB
RR
PF
EI
GI
EI
GI
SITE
100
SUMMER 1992
....l
-<
cc
80
60
tf..
Cl::
~
::g
::>
~
<
0
40
20
MB
CB
or
HB
RB
RR
PF
SITE
Figure 7. Number of tar balls collected per station by sampling period.
16
009332
11'.1
CIO
SPRING 1992
cO
~ 3000
CIO
CIJ)
......
E-
S:2
w 2000
3:
-<
..J
('f)
QO
..c
E-
11':1
1000
~
.....
co
11'.1
~
....
RB
RR
('f)
Q\
11'.1
Q\
...0
N
~
ci
CIQ
0
MB
CB
OP
HB
PF
EI
GI
STATION
SUMMER 1992
__ 3000
CIJ)
.......
E-
::t
Q 2000
w
s:..J
1000
It'!
('f)
0
MB
CB
OP
-'liB
RB
RR
PF
('f)
EI
t-:
Q\
GI
STATION
Figure 8.
Comparison of the tar abundance in grams/station by sampling period.
17
009333
3) Relatively unweathered, bimodal-wax. These tar balls are characterized by

a nC-18/phytane ratio greater than 1 and a bimodal distribution of normal alkanes
with a pronounced wax component from nC-21 extending to nC-37. Often nC-29
was the most abundant normal alkane. These oils are believed to be representative
of crude oil and heavy fuel oil tank washings or sludge discharges.
4) Weathered, high aromatic. Oils classified into this category were identified
by a nC-18/phytane ratio of less than 1 and were highly enriched with target AHs.
Oils in this classification are often representative of weathered refined heavy fuel
oils and some highly weathered crude oils.
5) Weathered, high paraffin. Oils classified into this category were identified
by a nC-18/phytane ratio of less than 1 and were enriched with normal paraffins
between nC-1S and nC-33. Oils in this classification have high pour-points and
many may be derived from heavy, high pour-point fuel oils.
6) Weathered, bimodal unresolved complex mixture (UCM). These tar balls
are characterized by a nC-18/phytane ratio less than 1 and a bimodal distribution of
the UCM. Oils in this classification are often weathered crude oils.
7) Weathered, bimodal wax. These tar balls are characterized by a nC18/phytane ratio less than 1 and a bimodal distribution of normal alkanes with a
pronounced nC-21 extending to nC-37 wax component~ often nC-29 is the most
abundant normal alkane detected. These oils are believed to be representative of
crude oil and fuel oil tank washing and sludge discharges as noted from the
unweathered, bimodal wax.
8) Weathered, bimodal UCM, and wax (trimodal). Oils classified as trimodal
are essentially weathered oils characterized by a bimodal UCM with an added heavy
wax component. These oils are believed to be representative of crude oil and fuel
oil tank washing or sludge discharges.
9) Unclassifiable. Oils th'atdid not fit any of the above classifications.
Generally, these oils were so heavily weathered that they could not be classified with
any confidence.
Figures 9 and 10 show chromatographic ion plots of oils typically classified as
weathered high aromatic, unweathered paraffinic, weathered bimodal UCM, and
weathered bimodal wax. Table 3 provides a summary of the GC/MS tar ball
classifications for the samples analyzed in the 1992 collection. The most common
classification identified was the relatively unweathered, high paraffin which
represented 32% of the samples analyzed. The weathered high paraffin samples
represented only 2% of the total which is consistent with our assumption that these
are high pour-point refined oils which tend to biodegrade relatively slowly. A total
18
009334
3) Relatively unweathered, bimodal-wax. These tar balls are characterized by

a nC-18/phytane ratio greater than 1 and a bimodal distribution of normal alkanes
with a pronounced wax component from nC-21 extending to nC-37. Often nC-29
was the most abundant normal alkane. These oils are believed to be representative
of crude oil and heavy fuel oil tank washings or sludge discharges.
4) Weathered, high aromatic. Oils classified into this category were identified
by a nC-18/phytane ratio of less than 1 and were highly enriched with target AHs.
Oils in this classification are often representative of weathered refined heavy fuel
oils and some highly weathered crude oils.
S) Weathered, high paraffin. Oils classified into this category were identified
by a nC-18/phytane ratio of less than 1 and were enriched with normal paraffins
between nC-IS and nC-33. Oils in this classification have high pour-points and
many may be derived from heavy, high pour-point fuel oils.
6) Weathered, bimodal unresolved complex mixture (UCM). These tar balls
are characterized by a nC-18/phytane ratio less than 1 and a bimodal distribution of
the UCM. Oils in this classification are often weathered crude oils.
7) Weathered, bimodal wax. These tar balls are characterized by a nC18/phytane ratio less than 1 and a bimodal distribution of normal alkanes with a
pronounced nC-21 extending to nC-37 wax component; often nC-29 is the most
abundant normal alkane detected, These oils are believed to be representative of
crude oil and fuel oil tank washing and sludge discharges as noted from the
unweathered, bimodal wax.
8) Weathered, bimodal UCM, and wax (trimodal). Oils classified as trimodal
are essentially weathered oils characterized by a bimodal UCM with an added heavy
wax component. These oils are believed to be representative of crude oil and fuel
oil tank washing or sludge discharges.
9) Unclassifiable. Oils th'atdid not fit any of the above classifications.
Generally, these oils were so heavily weathered that they could not be classified with
an y confidence.
Figures 9 and 10 show chromatographic ion plots of oils typically classified as
weathered high aromatic, unweathered paraffinic, weathered bimodal UCM, and
weathered bimodal wax. Table 3 provides a summary of the GC/MS tar ball
classifications for the samples analyzed in the 1992 collection. The most common
classification identified was the relatively unweathered, high paraffin which
represented 32% of the samples analyzed. The weathered high paraffin samples
represented only 2% of the total which is consistent with our assumption that these
are high pour-point refined oils which tend to biodegrade relatively slowly. A total
18
009335
of 26% of the samples analyzed contained the bimodal wax component that is
generally believed to be related to crude oil tanker washing or sludge discharges
resulting from cleaning waxy residues from the sides of storage tanks or cargo holds
(Butler et a1. 1973). Cleaning bunker fuel tanks and fuel lines may also result in a
similar wax Signature.
Table 3. Classification comparison for total sample population analyzed.
No. of Samples
% of Total
38
5
32
17
2
2
14
2
2
17
3
23
19
Relatively unweathered:
high aromatic
high paraffin
bimodal wax
Weathered:
high aromatic
high paraffin
bimodal UCM
bimodal wax
'bimodal UCM and wax
20
Unclassifiable
*n=118
19
009336
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
ime-->
20.00
10.00
30.00
undance
120000
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
TIC: HP3099G.D
100000
80000
60000
40000
~.
20000
ime-->
10.00
Figure 9.
1J
20.00
l ~I J .l.!I. IJ
I
11
I
30.00
.1
40.00
.J..1.l
I
50.00
60.00
70.00
TIC comparisons from samples classified as a high aromatic (top)

to an unweathered paraffinic oil (bottom).
20
009337
undance
Ion
85.00 (84.70 to 85.70): HP3080I.D
16000
14000
12000
10000
BOOO
6000
4000
2000
irne-->
undance
10.00
20.00
Ion
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
65.00 (84.70 to 85.70): HP3098D.D
70.00
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
....
..r!I
AS.
O~~~I~i~i~~~'~!~i~-r~i'l~i~-r~1'I~,~-r-ri'I~i~~"'"'I~I-Ti~j""j~I~I~-
ime-->
10.00
Figure 10.
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Comparison of the (m/ e) 85 chromatographic profile for oils

classified as weathered bimodal wax (top) and weathered
bimodalUCM (bottom).
21
009338
Source-fingerprinting. The data derived from all 118 individual samples were
compared to each other by an exhaustive matrix comparison process which utilized
all the chromatographic data and provided separation of the tar balls analyzed by
source. This comparison involved visual scrutinization of each ion pattern for all
ions analyzed. Through this manual process and previous experience, certain
components within the sources where shown to be quite unique and descriptive
which lead to a selection of compositional indexes for cluster plot analyses. These
relative comparisons were composed of ratios between components such as the
alkylated dibenzothiophenes and alkylated phenanthrenes. Each source was
assigned an alphabetical identification such as Source A and Source B. The
comparisons were completed for each sampling period independently followed by a
total sample comparison for a final source assessment.
Source-fingerprinting of the 65 Spring samples analyzed identified 37 different
sources; 8 of which were represented by multiple samples of the same oil source
and often distributed at different stations. From the 53 Summer samples analyzed,
33 sources were identified; 9 of which were represented by multiple samples of the
same source oil. The number of samples identified from an individual source
ranged from 1 to 8. When the two sample sets were compared to each other, 5
sources were observed in both the Spring and Summer 1992 samples, therefore a
total of 66 sources existed for both sampling periods.
An interesting observation was the wide distribution of several of the correlated tar
ball samples identified as being from the same source. Source A, with four samples,
was observed at GI, OP, and CB. Other sources noted for their wide distribution are
Source B, Source C, and Source G. Three stations, MB, OP, and RR appear to have
been significantly impacted by tar balls from one dominate source. Of the 118
samples analyzed, 45% were representative of unrelated sources and reported as a
single sourced sample and may be associated with small incidental spills. The
remaining 55% of the samples analyzed were originated from the 18 multiple
sources and may represent spills of a larger magnitude. The 5 sources which were
identified in both sampling periods, represent only 4% of the total and suggest that
they may originate from a chronic source or a larger discharge of oil that has been
widely distributed in the northern wa'ters of the Gulf of Mexico. Figure 13 shows a
histogram comparison of the sources represented by multiple samples in the set of
118 tar balls analyzed. Note the wide distribution of some of the matched sources.
Source E was of particular interest. It appears to be a weathered Middle Eastern
crude oil tank sludge discharge. Unknown Source E is compositionaly a high sulfur
oil typical of many Middle Eastern production crude oils. Key source-fingerprint
and biomarker profiles were very similar to several Middle Eastern oils available as
reference oils. Figure 14 shows an extracted ion chromatogram comparison of the
triterpane and hopane family (m/e 191) for Source E compared to a blended sample
of Kuwait crude oil. Figure 15 shows the same plots but for two
22
009339
undance
Ion 220.00 (219.70 to 220.70): H?3076F.D
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
ime-->
undance
35.50
36.00
36.50
37.00
37.50
38.00
38.50
39.00
39.50
Ion 220.00 (219.70 to 220.70): HP30aOF.D
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
O~~~~~~ro~~~~~~rT~~~~~~~~~'-~~~~~~~~
ime-->.35.00
Figure 11.

(m/ e 220) for two samples identified as positive matches.
23
009340
undance
Ion 220.00 (219.70 to 220.70): H?30S0F.D
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
im.e--)8S.00
35.50
36~OO
35.50
36.00
undance
36.50 37.00 37.50 38.00 38.50 39.00

Ion 220.00 (219.70 to 220.70): HI?30BlL.D
39.50
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
ime--)8S.00
Figure 12.
36.50
37.00
37.50
38.00
38.50
39.00

(m! e 220) for two samples classified as a nonmatch.
24
35L50
009341
additional Kuwait crude oils, a sample from the Ai-Bergan oil field in Southern
Kuwait and a sample of oil from the Arabian Gulf oil spill (1991); note the
consistency in this fingerprint comparison. Figure 16 shows a similar comparison
for additional oils from the Middle East region, namely a Saudi Arabian 'Arabian
Light' and Bashara crude oil from Iraq. The Arabian Light sample which is also very
similar to source E but distinctively different when compared to the Bashara crude
oil. Two additional domestic production oils were also included for comparison,
but they are obvious nonmatches. Figure 17 shows the same comparison for North
Slope crude oil and a "typical" South Louisiana crude oil. Two samples of tar balls
collected at east stations were found to be from the same source as several of the tar
balls collected at west stations. Source A was found at GI, in the east, and CB and OP
in the west. Source G was found at PF, in the east, and OP in the west.
15
SOURCE A
~ SOURCE B
10
>u
Z
SOURCEC
II
SOURCE 0
Cl
SOURCEE
:;:l
UJ
0::
~
MB
CB
OP
HB
RB
RR
PF
EI
SOURCEF
IS
IS
I:Sl
SOURCEG
C3
SOURCEAP
SOURCE U
SOURCEAL
GI
STATIONS
Figure 13.
Station distribution for sources identified with more than three

occurring samples.
25
009342
Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): HP3082I.D
undance
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
ime-->
undance
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): HP3146A.D
7000
6000
5000
4 000 ~
3000
2000
1000
50.00
Figure 14.
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
Chromatographic comparison of the triterpanes and hopanes

(m/e 191) profiles for tar ball Source E (top) to a Kuwait crude oil
sample (bottom).
26
009343
Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): HP3145D.D

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
O+-~~~~~~~~~-r~-r-r-r-r-.-.-r-r-r-.-r~~-T~~~~~--
ime--)45.00
undance
8000
7000
6000
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): HP3145F.D
5000
4000
3000
v
1
2000
1000 1
Iii
ime-->15.00
Figure 15.
ii'
50.00
iii
55.00
60.00
65.00
'
70.00

(m/ e 191) profile for Kuwaiti AI-Bergan crude oil (top) and oil
from the Arabian Gulf oil spill (bottom).
27
009344
undance
Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): HP3145C.b
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
ime-->
undance
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): HP3145E.D
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
O+-~~'-~~~~~-r-r-r~~~~~~~~~~~~r-r-~~~~'-~-
ime--:>4 5.00
Figure 16.
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00

(mle 191) profile for an Arabian light crude oil (top) and Basrah
crude oil (bottom).
28
009345
undance---
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
ime-->
undance
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): HP3143F.D
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
11
I
trime-->
Figure 17.
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
Comparisons of the North Slope crude reference oil (top) to a

"typical" South Louisiana OCS production crude oil (bottom).
29
009346
.. unda'nce--
Ion
85:00 (84.70 to 85.10): HP3145C.D
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
irne-->
10.00
20.00
Ion
undance
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
85.00 (B4.70 to 85.70): HP3082I.D
70.00
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
irne-->
10.00
Figure 18.
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Chromatographic comparison of the normal alkane (top)

distribution of an Arabian light crude oil and the unknown
Source E suspected as being weathered sludge discharge (bottom).
30
009347
Index Cluster Plots. A set of indexes for each sample were extracted from the
GC/MS data for cluster plot and statistical analyses. The indexes selected were
relatively uneffected by weathering and induded a range of components within the
oil to provide a more comprehensive numerical source identification. The goal was
to develop a method for aiding in source identification. The indexes selected were
the ratio of total C-3 dibenzothiophenes to C-3 phenanthrenes, total C-2
phenathrenes to C-2 chrysenes, and specific isomer ratios of C-3 dibenzothiophenes r
C-3 phenanthrenes, methylpyrenes, and methylchrysenes. A ratio table was created
tabulating all the samples analyzed and located in Appendix L As additional
information, these results were plotted as a scatter or cluster plot in an attempt to
further confirm sources. The cluster plots did not provide a high degree of
identification, but were considered a useful screening tool. An explanation for the
large number of unresolved groupings was based on a large number of sources
represented and the limited numerical spread of the indexes. The resulting cluster
plots were often more confusing than enlightening" yielding "inconclusive" results
for all duster index combination plots attempted, such as figure 19. The large
number of oil sources in the study population, their Similarity in composition, and
the various stages of weathering reduced the effectiveness of this approach as a
conclusive method, indicating that a simple four component, two dimensional
comparison was not adequate. Only by detailed comparison of the chromatographic
data could the related samples be identified.
Cluster and Principle Component Analyses. Statistical approaches were also
attempted to mathematically assess the GC/MS data for possible source correlations.
The techniques utilized were principal component analysiS and various cluster
analysis techniques. The indexes identified previously were considered the most
accurate fingerprinting descriptors for the sample population, comprised of
chemical components with reduced weathering rates, and chromatographic
uniqueness. This utilization of unique isomers or clusters to create ratio indexes is a
common chromatographic technique which reduces the amount of data as well as
highlighting natural variation. Ratios can also provide component normalization,
reduce intrinsic instrument variability and inherent weathering effects.
The index values were assessed for instrumental variability by utilizing 15 North
Slope crude reference oil injections completed during the sample analysis. The ratio
groups from the NSC reference oil that did not fall below the 30% variability range
were rejected from the statistical data set. The isomer index range was 12% to 23%
with'the C-3 Dibenzothiophene at 12% variability and C-1 Pyrenes and C-l
Chrysenes at 23%. The other two components with isomer ratio indexes, C-3
Phenanthrenes and Norhopane/Hopane were 15% and 21 % respectively.
31
009348
12
11
10
'0
7
~
o6
"[30
GROUPBR
GROUPE
(v
..;.;
GROUPU
+
+
+
+
+
3
2
=1=
+ +
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
+
1.25
1.S
1.75
NOR/HOP
Figure 19:
Primary cluster plot of all ,118 tar ball samples and 15 NSC reference oils
analyzed as a control. Four of the identified sources and the NSC
reference oils are highlighted.
32
009349
The cluster of isomers used for the C-3 Dibenzothiophene/C-3 Phenanthrene were
also within acceptable limits at 18%. The outlying index was C-2 Phenanthrenes to
C-2 Chrysenes at 66%. At the onset of this projEct" the intent was to classify the
samples analyzed using analytical values that were independent of internal
standard corrections, therefore the C-2 Phenanthrene/C-2 Chrysene value were
rejected.
For effective utilization of statistics, even experimental statistics, replication of
sources must be made and variability established. The replication sample was the
NSC reference oil. The enor associated in statistical grouping using an
unweathered oil was elimination of the slight additional variability that would exist
with environmentally weathered samples; although, this error is not expected to be
greater than the instrument variability. All statistical methods were capable of
clustering the NSC oil, though samples not sourced from NSC oil were occasionally
placed within or adjacent to that cluster.
Principle component analysis was completed after logarithemically transforming
the indexes into log form. All statistical indexes were used simultaneously with two
indexes (norhopane/hopane and C-3 dibenzothiophene/C-3 Phenanthrene)
weighted for the final statistical evaluation. The first two principle components
described approximately 80% of the variance" which was reflected in the statistical
plots utilizing various combinations of 6 principle components. The results
indicated only loose clustering for the samples originally source-fingerprinted as
similar, but highlighted a sample matched to the NSC reference oil. This
correlation was confirmed by detailed source-fingerprinting.
Four cluster analysis techniques were used as an, additional assessment of the
sample indexes. They included single linkage, average linkage, complete linkage
and centroid and differ by the process used to define the original cluster, or nearest
two samples. Single linkage defines the distance between two clusters as the
minimum distance between an observation from one cluster to another cluster.
Average linkage joins clusters with small and like variances within the average
distance between pairs of observatiQ~s. Complete linkage is biased toward. clusters
with equal diameters and defines the distance between two clusters as the
maximum distance between two closely associated points. The centroid procedure
tends to incorporate outliers more readily by defining the distance between two
clusters as the squared distance between the associated point's means. As in the
principle component analysis, the reference oil was identified as a single source and
a few of the sources were clustered correctly, but the distance plot was unable to
discern distinct dusters. A hierarchical plot of the distance between the clusters for
each method is provided in Appendix II along with other statistical results.
The initial attempts for source recognition were not highly successful for various
reasons, principally the limited value range of the index values. If additional
studies for comparison of unknown sources are required. Further investigation
should be applied t? the process of classification and regression trees (CARn which
33
009350
could provide more information by utilizing the components as characterization

indicators for decisive hierarchical clusters. This may limit the extent of exhaustive
source fingerprinting of chromatographic data required, though never eliminate the
need for source-fingerprinting.
CONCLUSIONS
During two sampling periods along the southern coast of Louisiana, 528 tar ball
samples were collected from nine stations with insignificant variability between the
two sampling periods. Most of the tar ball samples appeared as black, solidified tars.
The sand content within the samples was estimated by visual appearance and
averaged between 40 to 60%. Only low concentrations of organics and shell
fragments were observed incorporated into the tar ball samples.
In comparison to other shoreline studies within the Gulf of Mexico, the
concentration of tar balls along the Louisiana coast were low. The range of stranded
tar for the wider Gulf of Mexico Region was 0 to 4366.61 g/m (the highest value was
reported in Discovery Bay, Jamaica by Jones and Bacon, 1990); during our study, the
quantity of tar collected ranged from 0.53 to 47.77 gl m. If the estimated threshold
concentration of 100 g/m is considered a good guide in determining the degradation
of beaches for tourist purposes (Atwood et a1. 1987), the beaches studied were below a
level of social-economic concern. Although, any stranded oil on a beach is
aesthetically unpleasant, and the presence of oil reduces the value placed on that
beach as a resource.
Of the 118 samples analyzed by detailed GC/MS, 32% were indicative of high pour
pOint, heavy oils (most likely bunker or heavy heating oils); closely followed by
tanker washings or sludge discharges at 26%. Therefore, greater than 50% of the
samples collected can be associated with transportation activities. The persistence of
the spilled heavy petroleum oils, enriched with asphaltene and high molecular
weight residuum hydrocarbon components was considered greater than for many
crude oils and light refined petroleum products. Often, light oils spilled in the
marine environment spread very~thin on the water'S surface and disperse by
natural processes, such as storms, never forming tar balls. Heavy oils, which are
more viscous and less affected by physical processes, persist longer. Microbial
degradation, the ultimate fate of most tar balls in the marine environment, is
limited by the available surface area of the petroleum and by the recalcitrant
petroleum constituents.
Sourcefingerprinting by manual comparison of the available GC/MS data was
effective in identifying 66 different sources from a sample population of 118. Cluster
plot analyses are effective in screening a large population of GC/MS data to
determine which samples may be related. The possible matches would then require
conformation by a qualitative comparison of all chromatographic data.
Mathematical, or statistical, techniques were limited by the lack of replication and
34
009351
ran"ge in index values. The use of statistical principal component analyses may
provide a higher degree of separation of suspected sources. More work is required to
fully develop a statistical approach to source-fingerprinting.
Several of the sources appear to be derived from the discharge of tanker washings
containing crude oil and high molecular weight paraffins. Biomarker signatures
typical of Middle East and Alaskan North Slope crudes have been identified in the
tar balls analyzed. This is not surprising since approximately 30% and 8%,
respectively, of the crude oils transported into the Northern Gulf of Mexico are from
these two sources (Rainey, 1990).
RECOMMEND ATIONS
A repeat of this study in the 1994-1995 time period to assess changes in the
abundance, distribution, and sources of tar balis on the Louisiana coast.
Comparison of reference oils including many from the Louisiana OCS production
zones to the tar balls analyzed in this study. The few geographical associations
highlighted in this report were from casual observation onlYi no systematic effort
was made to establish specific sources.
Further develop statistical approaches to synthesis large sets of GC/MS sourcefingerprint data. Reanalyze the source index data by these improved methods.
Creation of a classification and regression tree for assessment of larger numbers of
samples I sources.
REFERENCES
Asuquo, F. E. 1991. Tar baUs on" Ibeno-Okpposo Beach of Southeast Nigeria.
Marine Pollution Bulletin.
22(3):150-151.
Atwood, D. K., F. J. Burton, J. E. Corredor, G. R. Harvey, A. J. Mata-Jimenez, A.

Vasquez-Botello and B. A. Wade. 1987. Results of the CARIPOL
Petroleum Pollution Monitoring Project in the Wider Caribbean.
Marine Pollution Bulletin. 18(10):540-548.
Benzhitsky, A. G. 1981. Distribution of tar balls in the surface layer of the Arabian
Sea in April-June 1980. Oceanology. 21(6):717-720.
Blumer, M., M. Ehrhardt and J. H. Jones. 1973. The environmental fate of stranded
crude oil. Deep-Sea Research. 20:239-259.
35
009352
Botello, A. V" C. Gonzalez and G. Diaz. 1991. Pollution by petroleum hydrocarbons

in sediments from contimental shelf of Tabasco State, Mexico.
Environmental Contamination & Toxicology.
47(4}:565-571.
Brakstad, F. and O. Grahl-Nielsen. 1988. Identification of weathered oils. Marine
Pollution Bulletin. 19(7)=319-324.
Burns, K.
A.~
Burton, F.
J.
P. Villeneuve, V. C. Anderlin and S. W. Fowler. 1982. Survey of tar,

hydrocarbon and metal pollution in the coastal waters of Oman.
Marine Pollution Bulletin. 13(7):240-247.
J. 1987. A survey of marine and littoral oil pollution in the Cayman

Islands, 1983-1983. Caribbean Journal of Science. 23(1):115-121.
Butler,
Butt,
J.
J. N., B. F. Morris
and J. Sass. 1973. Pelagic tar from Bermuda and the

Sargasso Sea. Bermuda Biological Station Spec. Pub!. No. 10.
A., D. F. Duckworth and S. G. Perry. 1986. Characterization of Spilled Oil
Samples. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Carr, A. 1987. Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival
outlook of sea turtles. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 18(6B):352-356.
Colombo, J. C. E. Pelletier, C. Brochu and M. Khalil. 1989. Determination of
hydrocarbon sources using n-alkane and polyaromatic hydrocarbon
distribution indexes. Case Study: Rio de La Plata Estuary, Argentina.
Environmental Science and Technologtj. 23:888-894.
I
Corredor, J. E., J. M. Morell and C. E. Del Castillo. 1990. Persistence of spilled crude
oil in tropical intertidal environment. lvIarine Pollu.tion Bulletin.
21(8):388-392.
Davis, N. J., and G. A. Wolfe. 1999~... The Mersey OU Spill, August, 1989. A case of
,
sediments contaminating the oil?
A1arine Pollution Bulletin.
21(10):481-434.
Georges, C. and B. L. Oostdam. 1983. The characteristics and dynamics of tar
... ",
1 es 0,t: ~:nlal.;~:C.
-~;-'- ~ "l"~
.'"r! ..LO',I<,&O.
~ 1 '/_':'
.~ L.,~,
'{:OI'
ro,11'",... ,lon on t ..1 _ lL<::ac1
II.
,;;, . .::~ ...." C ..
.(>
Eullethz. 14.(5):170-178.
Getter, C. D., T. G. Ballou and C. B. Koons. 1985. Effects of dispersed oil on

mangroves. Synthesis of a seven-year study. Marine Poilution
Bulletin. 16(8):318-324.
Getter C. D., G. I. Scott and J. Michel. 1981. The effects of oil spills on mangrove
forests: a comparison of five oil spill sites in the Gulf of Mexico and
36
009353
th~ Caribbean Sea. In Proceedings of the 1981 Oil Spill Conference. API
Washington D.C. pp. 535-540.
Geyer, R. A. 1980. Marine Environmental Pollution, Vol. 1.

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York.
Hydrocarbons.
J. D. Park and A. P. Rawlinson. 1981. Crude oil biodegradation

under simulated and natural conditions. Advances in Organic
Geochemistry. pp. 650-658.
Goodwin, N. 5., P.
Gough, M. A. and 5. J. Rowland. 1990. Characterization of Unresolved Complex

Mixtures of Hydrocarbons in Petroleum. Nature. 344:648-650 (12
April).
Grahl-Nelson, O. and T. Lygre. 1990. Identification of samples of oil related to two
spills. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 21 (4):176-183.
Guzman, fl. M" J. B. C. Jackson, and E. WeB. 1991. Short-term ecological
consequences of a major oil spill on Panamanian subtidal reef corals.
Coral Reefs. 10:112.
Hayes, M. 1978. Coastal Process FieJd Manual for Oil Spill Assessment. RPI Inc.
Henry, C. B. and E. B. Overton. 1993a. Chemical composition and sourcefingerprinting of depositional oil from the Kuwait oil fires. In
Proceedings of the 1993 Oil Spill Conference. API Washington, D.C.,
pp.407-414.
Henry, C. B. and E. B. Overton. 1993b. Source-fingerprinting and compound specific
quantitative analysis of oil contaminated soils and sediments. Unpubl.
MS. Louisiana State University, Institute for Environmental Studies.
Henry, C. B. and P. O. Roberts. 1992~ LSU response report: St. John Island, U.S.V.I.
site visit. Report number IES92-04. UnpubL MS. Louisiana State
University, Institute for Environmental Studies.
Iliffe, T. M. and A. H. Knap. 1979. The fate of stranded pelagic tar on Bermuda
beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 10:20~205.
Jones, M. A. J. and P. R. Bacon. 1990. Beach tar contamination in Jamaica. Marine
Pollution Bulletin. 21(7):331-334.
Kennicutt, M. C. n. 1988. The effect of biodegradation on crude oil bulk and
molecular composition. Oil & Chemical Pollution. 4:89-112.
37
009354
Koons, C. B. and P. H. Monaghan. 1973. Petroleum derived hydrocarbons in Gulf of

Mexico waters. Transactions - Gulf Coast Assoc. of Geological Societies.
23:170-181.
Knap, A. H" T. M. Iliffe and J. N. Butler. 1980. Has the amount of tar on the open
ocean changed in the past decade? Marine Pollution Bulletin. 11:161. 164.
Krishnaia, P. R. and L. N. Kana!. 1982. Handbook of Statistics 2, Classification

Pattern Recognition and Reduction of Dimensionalit~. North-Holland
Publishing Co., Amsterdam.
Lindstedt, D. M. and J. C. Holmes Jr. 1988. Louisiana's 1987 Beach Cleanup.
Louisiana Geological Survey.
Lizarraga-Partida, M. L., F. B. Izquierdo Vicuna and 1. W. Chang. 1990. Marine oil
degrading bacteria related to oil inputs and surface currents in the
western Caribbean Sea. Oil & Chemical Pollution. 7:271-281.
Mackay, D and C. D. McAuliffe. 1988. Fate of hydrocarbons discharged at sea. Oil &
Chemical Pollution. 5:1-20.
Michel, J., M. O. Hayes, W. J. Sexton, J. C. Gibeaut and C. B. Henry. 1991. Trends in
natural removal of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound
from September 1989 to May 1990. In Proceedings of the 1991 Oil Spill
Conference, API, Washington D.C. pp.181-187.
Morris, B. F. 1971. Petroleum: Tar quantities floating in the northwestern Atlantic
taken with a new quantitative neuston net. Science. 173:430432.
Overton, E. S.# J. McFall, S. W. Mascarella, C. 'F. Steele, S. A. Antoine, I. R. Politzer
and J. L. Laseter. 1981. Identification of petroleum residue sources after
a fire and oil spill. In Proceedings of the 1981 Oil Spill Conference. pp.
541-546.
Overton, E. B., L. V. McCarthy, S. W. Marcaella, S. R. Antoine, J. L. Laseter and J. W.
Farrington. 1980. Detailed chemical analysis of Ixtoc I crude oil and
selected environmental samples from the Researcher and Pierce
cruises. In Proceedings of a Symposium on Preliminary results from
the September 1979 Researcher/Pierce Itox 1 Cruise, Key Biscayne, FL,
June 9-10, 1980. NOAA, Office of Marine Pollution Assessment,
Boulder, CO.
Rainey, G. 1990. The risk of oil spills from the transportation of petroleum in the
Gulf of Mexico. In, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Gulf of Mexico
Informa tion Transfer Meeting. pp. 1-12.
38
009355
Reed, W. E. 1977. Molecular compositions of weathered petroleum and comparison

with its possible source. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 41:237247.
Roberts, P. O. and C. B. Henry. 1992. LSU Response Report. St. Eustatius Refinery
Oil Spill Response, Incident no. 89. Unpubl. Louisiana State.
University, Institute for Environmental Studies.
RPI International.
1987. Natural resource response guide: Marine fish. Ocean

Assessements Division, Office of Oceanography & Marine Services,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration.
Seifert, W. K. and J. M. Moldowan. 1978. Applications of steranes, terpanes and

monoaromatics to the maturation, migration and source of crude oils.
Geochima et Cosmochimica Acta. 42:77-95.
Sergy, G. A.,E. Owens and B. Humphrey. 1991. On describing and estimating the
. fate of stranded oil. In Proceedings from the 1991 Oil Spill Conference.
pp. 489-492.
Sleeter, T. D., B. F. Morris and J. N. Butler. 1976. Pelagic tar in the Caribbean and
equatorial Atlantic. Deep Sea Research. 23:467-474.
Sleeter, T. D., B. F. Morris and J. N. Butler. 1974. Quantitative sampling of pelagic
tar in the North Atlantic, 1973. Deep Sea Research. 21:773-775.
Smith, G. B. 1975. Pelagic tar in the Norwegian coastal current. Marine Pollution
Bulletin. 7:70-72.
Smith, S. R. and A. H. Knap. 1.985. Significant decrease in the amoun.t of tar
stranded on Bermuda~"Marine Pollution Bulletin. 16(1):19-21.
Thompson, B. 1984. Canonical Correlation Analysis, Uses and Interpretation. Sage
Publishing Ltd, England.
Thorndike, R. M. 1978. Correlational Procedures for Research. Gardener Press, Inc.,
New York.
Urdal, K., N. B. Vogt, S. P. Sporstol, R. G. Lichtenthaler, H. Mostad, K. Kolset, S.
Nordenson and K. Esbensen. 1986. Classification of weathered crude
oils using multimethod chemical analysis, statistical methods and
SIMCA pattern recognition. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 17(8);366-373.
Van Vleet, E. S., W. M. Sackett, S. B. Reinhardt and M. E. Mangini. 1984.
Distribution, sources and fates of floating oil residues in the Eastern
Gulf of Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 15(3):106-110.
39
009356
Volkman, J. K., R. Alexander, R. 1. Kagi and G. W. Woodhouse. 1983. Demethylated

hopanes in crude oils and their applications in petroleum
geochemistry. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 47:785-794.
Wong, C. 5., D. R. Green and W. J. Cretney. 1976. Distribution and source of tar on
the pacific Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 7(6):102-106.
40
009357
Appendix I.
Source Indexes
41
009358
Appendix II. Source Indexes
~082D
SAMPLE
NSCSTO
NSCSTO
NSCSTO
NSCSTO
NSCSTD
NSCsrO
NSCSTO
NSCSTO
NSCSTO
NSCSTO
NSCSTD
NSCSTD
NSCsrO
NSCSTD
NSCSTO
L2128-034
L2128-035
L2128-098
L2127-060
l2128-012
L2128-097
L2128-152
L2127-063
L2084-086
l2128016
L2128-114
L2127-036
l2127-042
L2127-100
C1PYa/PYb C1CYalCYb NORIHOP

C2P/C2C
GRP# C3DBalDBb C3Pa/Pb
C30/C3P
2.50
1.20
0.61
11.00
2.30
0.63
1.10 - NA
2.70
1.30
0.70
2.40
14.00
0.70
1.10
NA
1.30
2.30
0.62
2.40
11.00
NA
0.68
1.10
NA 1.30
0.67
2.40
2.20
0.68
12.00
1.04
2.20
NA
2.50
1.30
0.67
0.71
1.10
12.00
1.20
10.00
2.40
0.64
2.00
0.71
NA
0.96
1.30
0.63
2.10
0.70
14.00
2.50
1.10
NA
2.40
1.30
0.68
10.00
NA
2.30
0.70
0.98
0.67
1.30
2.30
12.00
2.70
0.67
NA
1.00
2.70
1.30
0.70
2.15
15.00
NA
0.64
0.98
; 2.60
1.30
0.67
2.10
11.00
0.65
1.00
NA
0.62
14.00
1.30
2.10
0.73
1.10
- 2.60
NA
1.20
0.73
2.00
11.00
2.60
0.68
0.92
NA
1.20
1.00
16.00
2.60
0.62
2.20
0.73
NA
1.40
20.00
0.58
1.90
0.78
1.10
2.90
NA
7.10
1.40
1.10
2.70
2.10
0.56
0.10
A
7.20
1.10
0.90
3.40
0.11
A
2.20
0.59
1.50
10.00
2.60
1.20
2.30
A
0.60
0.32
1.20
1.20
2.10
0.55
49.00
2.60
0.23
B
1.10
1.30
8.50
2.20
2.00
0.58
0.22
B
0.93
0.64
6.60
2.10
0.55
0.18
2.60
B
1.10
1.20
2.30
8.80
0.57
0.27
2.10
B
1.50
2.20
4.00
2.90
1.00
0.61
C
0.17
1.90
1.20
2.50
1.50
0.60
4.40
0.21
C
2.20
3.40
0.94
1.50
4.40
C
0.59
0.15
2.60
2.20
1.30
1.40
C
0.58
5.30
0.19
4.30
1.10
3.20
0
0.75
2.40
1 1 . 45
0.45
5.90
1.00
1.80
2.90
1.00
0
'0.76
0.39
5.20
0
1.70
1.30
2.60
0.78
2.90
0.47
009359
c...J
FILENAME
HP3076B
HP3077B
HP3078B
HP3079B
HP3080B
HP30818
HP30828
HP30838
HP3096B
HP3097B
HP30988
HP3099B
HP3100B
HP31018
HP3105B
HP3076D
HP3076E
HP30781
HP3060J
HP3076J
HP3078J
HP3079J
HP3080F
HP3079H
HP3076F
HP3083F
HP3079D
HP3080D
SAMPLE
L2127-1000
L2128-005
L2128-025
L2128-121
L2128-124
l2127-062
L2127083
L2127-090
L2127092
L2127-096
L2128096
L2128-109
L2127-026
l2127-098
L2128-059
L2128067
L2128071
L2128-081
L2128-091
L2128-102
L2127-034
L2127-051
L2084-089
L2084-146
L2128-018
L2128-019
L2128-028
L2128-036
L2128042
C1PYa/PYb C1CYa/CYb NORIHOP

C3D/C3P
C2P/C2C
GRP# C3DBalOBb C3Pa/Pb
2.60
4.90
1.30
0.75
0.38
2.20
1.70
0
1.45
2.70
0.75
4.40
0.36
3.40
0
1.80
1.10
2.90
0.86
0.45
3.70
5.00
D
1.80
0.70
1.10
2.50
0.40
4.10
3.50
0
1.90
2.50
4.70
1.90
0.48
3.60
0
0.61
1.90
3.20
0.63
1.50
4.70
14.00
2.50
E
1.60
0.70
1.90
1.50
17.00
3.00
5.50
E
1.60
0.50
2.60
2.10
1.60
18.00
1.50
5.40
E
0.68
2.00
3.90
1.60
19.00
E
5.20
1.50
2.20
1.50
5.20
16.00
0.80
3.30
E
1.60
:. 1.60
2.10
3.20
0.83
1.50
5.40
17.00
E
2.30
1.60
3.40
0.76
4.90
20.00
E
1.60
1.10
1.20
1.60
1.70
0.68
7.90
1.80
F=BN
--0.91
7.90
1.20
1.80
3.00
0.76
1.80
F=BN
0.79
1.20
1.70
0.41
9.00
0.45
1.20
G
1.30
1.50
0.87
7.80
0.58
3.20
1.90
G
0.71
0.35
13.00
1.40
1.70
5.80
1.90
G
1.40
1.60
1.00
0.75
0.29
8.90
1.40
G
1.50
0.83
11.00
1.30
1.80
0.49
1.40
G
. 1.20
1.60
1.40
8.10
0.49
1.20
1.00
G
1.20
1.70
5.40
7.00
0.89
0.89
H
2.00
1.20
9.60
1.60
0.68
0.65
2.90
H
1.60
1.30
2.10
3.20
1.30
1.40
I
3.70
11.00
1.00
3.70
59.00
0.63
0.75
0.02
1.30
J
1.90
1.10
2.00
0.68
0.46
1.70
K
1.40
2.20
0.50
0.54
4.30
1.00
0.59
2.20
L
0.84
0.62
0.14
7.80
0.95
1.90
2.10
M=BQ
0.77
1.80
3.10
1.40
3.90
6.60
N
1.70
0.92.
1.90
5.00
0.95
4.00
1.50
0
1.80
009360
~
~
FILENAME
HP3082E
HP3078D
HP3077D
HP3083D
HP3083E
HP3081K
HP3081G
HP3081E
HP3081H
HP3082\
HP3077E
HP3083H
HP3079F
HP3082J
HP3078E
HP3077J
HP3077G
HP3077H
HP30771
HP3083G
HP3079E
HP3079G
HP30791
HP3079K
HP3077K
HP3076K
HP30761
HP3076H
HP3076G

SAMPLE
L2128-063
L2128-066
l2128-070
L2128-075
C3D/C3P
C2P/C2C
C1PYalPYb C1CYa/CYb NORIHOP
GRP# C3DBalDBb C3PalPb
0.00
1.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P
0.00
0.73
Q
1.30
2.00
0.93
0.64
1.60
2.20
1.80
0.65
2.50
1.30
0.23
1.30
R
2.90
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
S
0.00
0.00
l2128~099
5.00
0.61
0.09
0.03
1.10
T
2.80
3.50
L2128-122
1.80
1.20
17.00
0.67
2.30
1.90
2.40
U=AQ
1.60 .
1.90
L2128-129
1.10
0.76
1.80
3.20.
V
4.10
2.20
L2128-130
1.40
4.30
11.00
1.60
1.50
W
3.60
L2127-027
1.30
1.90
1.50
0.00
0.00
X
0.00
0.00
L2127-040
1.30
1.50
0.13
2.50
1.00
0.80
Y
1.20
~1.50
1.40
1.20
1.20
4.10
L2127-050
1.80
4.60
Z
. 2.20
2.10
1.20
1.20
7.50
L2127-061
7.00
0.57
AA
12.00
0.76
1.80
L2127-064
1.30
0.21
2.00
5.20
AS
L2127-064D
14.00
0.77
0.19
4.30
1.50
2.10
AC
1.60
1.10
6.40
0.05
L2127-066
1.30
3.90
2.00
1.60
AD
2.70
1.90
0.53
9.00
2.00
L2127-070
3.20
2.70
AE
l2127-070D
1.00
2.30
0.65
12.00
2.90
0.62
3.80
AF
2.40
l2127-072
1.60
2.10
0.47
0.87
2.10
9.60
AG
l2127-073
26.00
1.50
0.02
3.00
1.50
9.30
AH
3.90
L2127-074
2.80
1.00
1.20
6.50
AI
2.00
2.30
2.10
1.20
0.00
1.50
1.70
L2127-076
0.00
11.00
2.40
AJ
2.60
L2127-103
1.60
0.46
0.10
2.20
AK
2.10
10.00
l2244-010
2.10
AL
2.80
1.30
0.55
1.20
0.21
13.00
l2328-034
1.10
1.45
AL
1.90
0.63
2.50
0.30
6.40
0.64
1.50
L232B-043
2.40
1.10
0.28
2.00
AL
5.80
L2328-052
1.60
2.40
1.30
0.62
2.00
AL
0.34
5.20
L2328-058
AL
,2.60
0.95
1.90
1.50
0.69
0.32
7.10
L2328-059
1.10
1.50
Al
2.40
1.90
0.65
0.29
7.30
L2328-073
2.30
2.40
0.60
AL
1.00
0.23
0.43
2.:3Q
009361
VI
FILENAME
HP3078F
HP3078G
HP3077F
HP3078H
HP3078K
HP30831
HP3083K
HP3083J
HP3082F
HP3080K
HP3080E
HP30810
HP30801
HP30811
HP30BOH
HP3081 F
HP3082G
HP3081L
HP3082H
HP3081J
HP3080G
HP30B2K
HP3099G
HP3098F
HP3098G
HP3098H
HP309BJ
HP3099J
HP3096F

C3D/C3P
C2P/C2C
GRP# C3DSalDBb C3PalPb
C1PYatPYb C1CYalCYb NbAIHOP
8.20
0.95
1.60
AM
2.20
1.00
1.90
3.60
1.60
9.50
0.95
AM
2.40
1.90
3.10
1.50
10.00
5.20
1.60
6.40
AN
1.70
2.00
1.05
7.80
2.10
7.70
1.60
AN
1.60
0.70
1.90
2.40
0.94
6.60
1.90
AO
1.70
1.50
1.20
0.79
3.00
10.00
AO
1.70
1.40
1.30
2.00
2.00
0.81
15.00
AP
2.20
1.10
1.90
1.10
2.70
12.00
AP
1.20
2.30
2.00
2.60
1.40
AP
1.00
3.50
13.00
2.40
1.90
3.80
2.00
L2244~004
2.80
1.10
14.00
3.10
2.30
1.50
1.60
AQ""U
\:
L2244-034
1.10
2.70
15.00
1.70
AQ=U
2.30
2.90
1.30
AQ=,u
1.10
2.40
13.00
L2244-148
2.00
2.50
1.00
1.60
AQ",U
l2244-168
2.30
12.00
1.10
1.90
2.20
0.65
1.60
L2244-101
AR
0.54
1.70
1.10
1.30
2.00
0.55
2.00
l2244-147
0.40
0.15
1.60
1.70
AR
2.10
2.60
1.30
L2244-035
5.00
12.00
AS
1.40
1.60
3.00
2.70
1.10
0.64
5.10
43.00
L2244038
AS
1.60
0.00
2.80
1.60
L2244-066
2.20 '
3.30
7.40
AS
2.20
1.10
0.83
0.00
L2244-091
AT
1.90
0.78
0.57
3.60
3.10
2.90
1.10
0.57
l2328-038
7.00
1.40
AU
1.90
1.90
0.56
1.40
L2328-078 .
AV
2.40
9.80
0.53
0.68
1.50
1.60
1.30
AW
L2328-055
2.50
0.84
4.40
2.20
1.80
0.79
5.60
L2244-098
AX
2.20
2.20
1.00
2.30
0.42
0.26
11.00
L2244-093
AY
2.20
1.80
1.90
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.80
. 1.90
l2328-084
0.52
AZ
.4.60
1.25
1.30
1.50
5.00
L2328-003
SA
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
L2328-081
SS
1.70
1.10
1.20
1.50
0.54
0.45
0.73
I
l2244-029
2.40
4.40
3.00
EC
2.60
0.63
1.10
17.00
L2328-097
80
1.15
1.60
0.12
3.20
3.30
0.59
_l!i.OO
SAMPLE
L2244-135
L2244-161
L2244-015
l2328-093
L2244-132
L2244-143
L2244-115
L2244-118
l2244-137
-----~
009362
FILENAME
HP30980
HP3100D
HP3099E
HP3096E
HP30971
HP30991
HP3097G
HP3097H
HP3098E
HP3099F
HP3101G
HP31 DOG
HP31001
.J::o.
0\ HP3097J
HP3100F
HP3101F
HP3101D
HP3105D
HP3097F
HP3098K
HP3096G
HP30981
HP3097E
HP3097K
HP30961
HP3096D
HP3096J
HP3099D
HP3096H
-...l
SAMPLE
L2328-069
L2244-025
L2244~185
L2244-165
L2244-172
L2244178
L2244-156
L2244109
L2244-043
L2244-044
L2328-031
l2328072x
L2244075
l2244-062
L2244-073
l2244-083
C2P/C2C
C1PYalPYb C1CYalCYb NORIHOP
C3D/C3P
GRP# C3DBaJOBb C3Pa/Pb
0.15
1.20
3.50
FE
1.30
0.97
3.00
2.00
0.74
5.00
8.70
0.29
a:
1.70
1.40
1.50
6.60
0.57
3.70
1.50
1.80
1.60
1.00
EG
7.00
2.50
0.97
BH
0.65
2.10
0.55
0.19
3.30
1.50
7.00
0.95
0.90
BI
1.20
1.40
0.48
1.40
1.30
1.30
0.97
1.20
1.50
BJ
1.40
1.40
1.10
1.10
1.40
0.47
0.48
BK
33.00
4.60
BL
1.70
0.76
1.80
1.00
4.20
1.00
BVI
2.00
1.50
7.40
7.50
1.40
1.70
2.60
1.80
4.80
1.30
1.90
1.20
1.70
BN=F
2.40
2.05
2.10
1.30
2.20
0.62
0.75
00
4.10
20.00
12.00
8P
1.30
2.00
0.65
0.55
9.40
0.18
2.40
0.76
BO=M
1.60
1.90
0.63
1.00
1.20
1.80
2.90
9.40
1.10
6.00
EFt
0.00
1.40
1.20
EFt
1.60
1.50
0.00
6.50
3.00
1.60
1.60
0.71
1.20
BS
0.81
0.97
009363
.f,lo.
FILENAME
HP3099K
HP3099H
HP3100E
HP3100H
HP3100J
HP3100K
HP3100L
HP3097D
HP3101H
HP31011
HP3101K
HP3096K
HP3105E
HP3105F
HP3105G
HP31051
009364
009365
Appendix II. Principle Component Analyses
This appendix contains the following statistical information:

Program and data utilized for SAS/STAT analyses.
Principle component statistical analysis results.
Principle component plots for the following components:
Prin 1*Prin2
Prin 1*Prin3
Prinl *Prin4
Prin2*Prin3
Prin2*Prin4
Distance between clusters plotted in the following forms:
Single linkage clusters
Average linkage clusters
Centroid clusters
49
009366
options pS=66 Is=77 pageno=l;

data one;
length sample $10 groupno $3 id $14 ;
input filenameS sampleS groupno$ c3db c3p clpy cIchy norhop c3dc3Pi
id=tr irn (sample) I I" " I I group no ;
yl=log(c3db)i
y2=log(c3p)i
y3=log(clpy) ;
y4=log(clchY)i
y5=log(J*norhop) i
y6=log(2*c3dc3p) i
cardsj
HP3076B
HP3077B
HP3078B
HP3079B
HP3080B
HP3081B
HP3082B
HP3083B
HP3096B
HP3097B
HP3098B
HP3099B
HP3100B
HP3101B
HP3105B
HP3076D
HP3076E
HP3078I
HP3078J
HP3076J
HP3078J
HP3079J
HP3079H
HP3080F
HP3076F
HP3083F
HP3079D
HP3080D
HP3982D
HP3082E
HP30780
HP3077D
HP3083D
HP3083E
HP3081K
HP3081G
HP3081E
HP3081H
HP30821
HP3077E
HP3083H
HP3079F
HP3082J
HP3078E
HP3077J
HP3077G
HP3077H
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
NSC-STD *
L2128-034
L2128-035
L2128-098
L2127-060
L2128-012
L2128-097
L2128-152
L2084-086
L2127-063
L2128-016
L2128-1l4
L2127-038
L2127-042
L2127-100
L2127-100D
L2128-005
L2128-025
L2128-121
L2128-124
L2127-062
L2127-083
L2127-090
L2127-092
L2127-096
L2128-096
L2128-109
L2127-026
L2127-098
L2128-059
L2128-067
L2128-071
L2128-0S1
2.50
2.70
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.40
2.50
2.40
2.70
2.70
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.90
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
G
G
G
G
1. 20
1. 30
1. 30
1.30
1.30
1.20
1.30
1. 30
1.30
1. 30
1. 30
1. 30
1.20
1. 20
1.40
2.10
2.20
2.60
2.60
2.20
2.60
2.10
2.50
2.90
3.40
2.60
1. 45
1. 80
...J. .10
1. 70
1. 80
1.80
1. 90
1.90
1. 60
1. 60
1. 50
1.50
1.60
1. 60
1. 60
1. SO
1. SO
1. 20
1. 90
1. 90
1.40
51
0.61
0.70
0.62
0.67
0.67
0.64
0.63
0.68
0.67
0.70
0.67
0.62
0.73
0.62
0.58
1.40
1.10
1.50
1.20
1.10
0.93
1.10
1.90
2.20
2.20
2.20
4.30
5.90
5.20
4.90
4.40
5.00
4.10
4.70
3.20
3.00
2.60
3.90
3.30
3.20
3.40
7.90
7.90
9.00
7.S0
13.00
8.90
2.30
2.40
2.40
2.20
2.20
2.00
2.10
2.30
2.30
2.15
2.10
2.10
2.00
2.20
1. 90
1.10
0.90
1.20
1. 20
1. 30
0.64
1.20
1. 20
1. 00
0.94
1. 30
1.10
1. 00
1. 30
1. 30
1. 45
1.10
1.10
1. 90
0.63
0.70
0.50
0.68
0.80
0.83
0.76
1. 20
1. 20
1. 20
1. 30
1. 40
1. 40
0.63
0.70
0.68
0.68
0.71
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.67
0.64
0.65
0.73
0.68
0.73
0.78
2.70
3.40
2.30
2.10
2.00
2.10
2.30
1.50
1.50
1. 50
1. 40
3.20
2.90
2.60
2.60
2.70
2.90
2.50
2.50
2.50
1.90
2.10
2.00
2.20
2.10
2.30
1. 60
l.80
1. 70
1.50
1. 70
1. 60
1.10
1.10
1.10
1. 04
1.10
0.96
1.10
0.98
1.00
0.98
1. 00
1.10
0.92
1. 00
1.10
0.56
0.59
0.60
0.55
0.58
0.55
0.57
0.60
0.61
0.59
0.58
0.75
0.76
0.7-8
0.75
0.75
0.86
0.70
0.81
1. 50
1.50
1. 60
1. 60
1. 50
1.50
1. 60
1.10
0.91
0.79
0.87
0.71
1. 00
0.10
0.11
0.32
0.23
0.22
0.18
0.27
0.21
0.17
0.15
0.19
0.45
0.39
0.47
0.38
0.36
0.45
0.40
0.48
4.70
5.50
5.40
5.20
5.20
5.40
4.90
0.68
0.76
0.45
0.58
0.35
0.75
009367
HP3077I
HP3083G
HPJ079E
HPJ079G
HP30791
HP3079K
HP:3077K
HP3076K
HP30761
HP3076H
HP3076G
HPJ078F
HP3078G
HP3077F
HP3078H
HP3078K
HP30831
HP3083K
HP3083J
HPJ082F
HP3080K
HP3080E
HP3081D
HP30801
HP3081I
HP3080H
HP3081F
HPJ082G
HPJ081L
HP3082H
HP3081J
HP30S0G
HP3082K
HP3099G
HP3098F
HP3098G
HP309SH
HP309SJ
HP3099J
HPJ096F
HP3098D
HP3100D
HP3099E
HP3096E
H?3097I
HP3099I
HP3097G
HP3097H
HP3098E
HP3099F
HP3101G
HP3100G
HP31001
HP3097J
HP3100F
HP3101F
HP3101D
HP310SD
HP3097F
HP3098K
L2128-091
L2128-102
L2127-034
L2127-0S1
L2084-089
L2084-146
L2128-018
L.2128-019
L2128-028
L2128-036
L2128-042
L.2128-063
L2128-066
L2128-070
L.2128-075
L2128-099
L2128-122
L2128-129
L2128-13D
L2127-027
L2127-040
L2127-050
L2127-061
L2J.27-064
L2127-064D
L2J.27-066
L2127-070
L2127-070D
L2127-072
L2127-073
L2127-074
L2J.27-076
L2127-103
L2244-010
L2328-034
L2328-043
L2328-052
L2328-05S
L2328-059
L2328-073
L2244-l:3S
L2244-161
L2244-015 S
L2328-093
L2244-132
L2244-143
L2244-115
L2244-118
L2244-137
L2244-004
L2244-034
L2244-148
L2244-168
L2244-101
L2244-147
L2244-0J5
L2244-038
L2244-066
L2244-091
L2328-038
G
G
H
H
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
m
m
n
n
0
0
P
P
P
U
U
U
U
q
q
r
r
r
5
1.40
11. DO
1. 30
1. 20
8.10
7.00
9.60
3.20
3.70
1.90
1.00
0.84
3.10
1.90
0.00
2.20
2.90
0.00
3.S0
2.40
4.10
3.60
0.00
1.20
4.60
7.00
5.20
1.60
1. 60
3.20
3.80
9.60
3.00
2.10
2.40
10.00
1.20
1.90
2.00
2.00
1.90
1.90
2.30
3.60
3.10
2.00
1.90
1.50
1.40
1.90
2.60
3.80
3.10
2.90
2.50
2.20
1. 30
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.20
2.90
1. 40
1. 60
1.20
1.20
1. 30
1.00
1.10
0.59
0.95
0.77
0.92
0.00
1.30
1.30
0.00
1.10
0.61
1.10
1.50
1.30
1.00
1.40
1.20
1.30
1. 50
1.30
2.00
1.00
1.60
1.50
1.20
1.20
1.60
1.30
1.10
1.10
1.30
0.95
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.05
0.7Q
2.00
1.60
3.70
1.30
1.40
2.20
2.10
1. 70
1.80
0.00
1.60
2.50
0.00
2.80
1.90
1.60
1.60
0.00
2.50
1.50
2.20
2.00
4.30
2.00
2.70
2.90
2.10
3.90
2.00
11.00
2.10
2.80
2.50
2.40
2.40
2.60
2.40
2.30
1. 90
1.90
1;-:"10
1.60
1. 70
1.70
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.30
2.30
2.00
1.90
1. 70
2.10
1.40
1. 60
2.20
1.90
1.90
52
1.20
1.30
1.10
1.40
2.00
1.60
1.30
1.00
0.65
2.00
1. 30
1.10
1. 60
0.00
1.10
1. 40
1. 50
1. 40
1. 70
1. 60
2.10
59.00
2.00
2.20
1. 90
1.80
5.00
0.00
2.00
1.80
0.00
5.00
1.80
1.90
2.20
1.90
1.30
1.20
2.10
12.00
14 .00
6.40
2.70
2.30
2.10
26.00
2.80
0.00
2.60
2.10
1. 45
1.50
1. 60
1.50
1.50
2.40
2.20
2.40
6.40
7.70
1.90
2.00
1.10
2.00
1.90
1.50
1. 70
1.60
1.60
2.00
1. 70
3.00
0.00
1.10
3.10
1.90
0.83
1. 20
0.89
0.68
1.30
0.63
0.68
0.50
0.62
1.40
0.95
1. 40
0.73
0.65
2.00
0.61
1.20
0.76
1. 40
1.50
1. 50
1.20
1. 20
0.76
0.77
1.10
1.90
0.65
0.47
1.50
1. 00
1.50
0.46
0.55
0.63
0.64
0.62
0.69
0.65
0.60
0.95
0.95
1. 6'0
1.60
0.94
0.79
0.81
1.20
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
0.55
0.40
1. 60
0.64
0.83
0.78
0.56
0.49
0.49
0.89
0.65
1.40
0.75
0.46
0.54
0.14
:3.90
4.00
0.00
0.93
0.23
0.00
0.09
2.30
1.80
4.30
0.00
O.D
l.80
0.57
1.80
2.10
3.90
0.53
0.62
0.S7
9.30
2.30
1. 70
0.10
0.21
0.30
0.28
0.34
0.32
0.29
0.23
1.60
1.60
10.00
7.S0
2.40
3.00
2.00
2.70
3.50
2.80
2..70
2.40
2.30
0.54
0.15
5.00
5.10
3.30
0.57
0.57
009368
HPJ096G
HPJ0981
HPJ097E
HP3097K
HP30961
HP3096D
HP3096J
HP3099D
HP3096H
HP3099K
HPJ099H
HP3100E
HP3100H
HP3100J
HP3100K
HP3100L
HP3097D
HPlIOIH
HPl101I
HP3101K
HP3096K
HP310SE
HP310SF
HP3105G
HP3105G
L2328-078
L2328-055
L2244-098
L2244-093
L2328-084
L2328-003
L2328-081
L2244-029
L2328-097
L2328-069
L2244-025
L2244-185
L2244-165
L2244-172
L2244-178
L2244-156
L2244-109
L2244-043
L2244-044
L2328-031
L2328-072x
L2244-075
L2244-062
L2244-073
L2244-082
u
v
2.00
1. 60
4.40
2.20
2.20
4.60
0.00
1.10
4.40
1.15
3.50
8.70
3.70
0.97
7.00
1. 30
1.10
4.60
7.50
1. 80
4.80
&
2.05
4.10
2.40
1.00
1.60
1. 60
2.10
12.00
0.76
1. 20
1. 40
1.20
w
x:
Y
2
:3
4
5
6
7
8
9
@
+
%
%
2.40
2.50
2.20
1. 80
1. 90
0.00
1. 70
2.40
3.20
1. 30
1. 70
1. 80
2.50
1. 50
1.40
1.40
1. 70
1. 30
9.80
2.20
1. 80
1. 00
1. 00
1.25
2.30
0.53
0.79
. 0.42
1. 90
1. 30
1. 50
1. 50
0.00
1. 50
2.60
3.30
2.00
1. 50
1. 60
2.10
1.40
0.85
0.54
0.63
0.59
0.00
1.20
3.00
1. 60
0.97
1.40
1.50
0.65
1.20
1.30
1.10
0.76
1.50
1. 30
1.30
1.30
1.60
1.80
1.50
0.81
1.50
1.40
1.80
7.40
1. 90
2.20
2.00
1. 90
2.90
0.00
1. 60
proc princoI1lp data=one COy out=two;

var yl-y6;
runj
proc plot 4ata=two;
plot prin1*(prin2 prin3 prin4)=groupno
prin2*{prin3 prin4)=groupno
prin3*prin4=groupno;
run;
quit;
proc cluster data=one method=average noprint outtree=tree;
id id;
var yl-y6;
copy filename;
run;
proc tree data=treei
run;
.
data depths;
set tree;
if _height_>O then output;
run;
proc sort data=depths;
by _height_;
run;
data depths;
set depths;
53
1. 20
0.74
0.57
0.55
0.95
0.97
0.47
1. 00
1. 40
0.68
0.84
0.26
1. 00
0.52
0.00
0.45
1.10
0.12
J.OO
0.29
1.00
0.19
0.90
1.20
0.48
4.20
1. 70
1. 70
1.20
0.62
0.65
0.63
1.10
1.20
0.55
0.18
6.00
6.50
0.71
0.97
0.75
009369
SAS
16:06 Thursday, June 3, 1993
Principal Component Analysis

124 Observations
6 Variables
simple Statistics
Mean
Std
Mean
std
Yl
Y2
Y3
0.7153643843
0.2620568461
0.9543289886
0.6890603804
0.0790842556
0.3341835144
Y4
Y5
Y6
0.8291242379
0.5639795715
0.8978117558
0.3576365060
0.504227747
1.126553344
covariance Matrix
Yl
Y2
Y3
Y4
YS
Y6
Y1
Y2
Y'J
Y4
YS
Y6
Y1
Y2
0.068673791
-0.056252784
-0.004929400
0.013903911
-0.030898977
-0.092112447
-0.056252784
0.474804208
0.090371189
-0.008604433
0.069876340
0.068883490
-0.004929400
0.090371189
0.111678621
0.009338240
-0.006371521
-0.066154413
Y4
YS
Y6
0.013903911
-0.008604433
0.009338240
0.318072957
0.015020794
0.142660778
-0.030898977
0.069876340
-0.006371521
0.015020794
0.127903870
0.286333738
-0.092112447
0.068883490
-0.066154413
0.142660778
0.286333738
1.269122437
Total variance
2.3702558844
Eigenvalues of the Covariance Matrix
PRIN1
PRIN2
PRIN3
PRIN4
PRINS
PRIN6
Eigenvalue
Difference
Proportion
Cumulative
1. 37374
0.868631
0.202549
0.219493
0.028983
0.002406
0.579575
0.213104
0.127650
0.035047
0.022819
0.021804
0.57958
0.79268
0.92033
0.95538
0.97820
1.00000
0.50511
0.30256
0.08307
0.05409
0.05168
54
009370
SAS
Principal Component Analysis

Eigenvectors
VI
V2
Y3
Y4
Y5
Y6
PRINl
PRIN2
PRIN3
PRIN4
PRIN5
PRIN6
-.075260
0.090148
-.043582
0.130412
0.228572
0.956586
-.115013
0.949434
0.231784
-.107090
0.102788
-.097924
0.087954
0.087021
0.127126
0.974751
-.080485
-.109146
0.001617
-.231304
0.962370
-.098829
-.048279
0.090780
0.806593
0.165675
-.016562
-.107767
-.524465
0.187102
0.568134
-.043881
0.042244
-.002028
0.808280
-.142101
55
009371
SAS
Plot of PRINl'PRIN2.
Symbol is value of GROUPNO.
3.0 +
n
2.5
E E
rEEE
2.0 +
W
d 0
1I
1. 5 +
PRINI
pU
1.0+
b
$Z
mill
p
I
0.5 +
J
H
"
t
q
-0.5 +
G~
1 1
-1.0 +
A
0 DOD
D
1
11
w1
B
6l
-1.5 +
F gG
F
**1
0.0 +
* **
**
67
+
C
'{
C
C
-2.0 +
A 3
-2.5 +
---+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
PRIN2
NOTE: 8 obs had missing values.
10 obs hidden.
56
009372
l5:06 Thursday, June 3, 1993
SAS
Plot of ?RIN1*PRIN3.
J.O
Symbol is value of GROU?NO.
+
n
2.5 +
h
n
EEE
2.0 +
EE
W
1.5 +
4p
I?RIHl
1.0
lJUop
U
U 0
mm
I
P
0.5 +
0.0 ...
****
6H"
?
**v
F
H
a e.
s
f
G
G G
ODD
G
D
K
00
0
G
!1
y
-0.5 +
115
-1.0 +
1
1
A
B
R 10'1
-1.
c
c
5 .;-
B1
B
C
'{
C q
M
AJ
-2.0 ...
A
-2.5 +
---+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+--l
0
1
2
3
4
PRIIlJ
23 obs hidden.
57
009373
16:06 Thursday, June J,
SAS
Plot of PRINl*PRIN4.
1993
Symbol is value of GROUPNO.
3.0 +
2.0 +
E:
W
@
1.5+
4
FRItH
U
I u
1.0 +
oU
J!I
III
0.5 +
..**...
0.0 +
8
H
..,
Q 6
?G
*F
F
Ha
f
"'G
.&
'I
G
00
-0.5 +
<;
0 t
0
I<
0
D
-1.0 +
,.. 1
1
11
1 ."
B
R
-1. S +
87
1s
C
+
c .. ".
q
M
-2.0 +
T
J
A
-2.5 ..
---+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-0.75
1.00
-0.25
0.00
0.50
-0.75
0.25
-0.50
PRIN4
10 obs hidden.
58
009374
16:06 Thursday, June :3 I
SAS
symbol is value of GROUPNO.
Plot of PRIN2*PRIN3.
PRIN2
1993
1.75 +
1.50 +
1.25 +
F'
8
H-
1.00 +
0.75 +
00
0
0
v
$
0.50 +
I
I
Im
E
NEE
-0.25 +
U 1
E 1
If
CC r
lCQ
VI
K&
"i
h
A
-0.50 +
t~
oJ
-0.75 +
lI1.R
0.00 +
V
W
0.25 +
6
@
3 d
%B
****
.. *
*M7
B
-1.00 +
-1.25 +
---+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+-4
3
2
0
1
-1
PRINJ
27 obs hidden.
59
009375
16:06 Thursday, June J,
SAS
symbol is value of
Plot of PRIN2*PRIN4.
PRIN2
1. 75
1.50
1.25
I
+
Ie
I
+
9
'E'
I
I
1
Ii
I
0
o y
0.75 +
0$
0.50 +
V
1114
0.25 +
NEE
JE
E
x 1
1 Q
&
hp
-1. 25
U r
Cl C
In
A
Y
-0.50 +
-1. 00
I
+
0.00 +
-0.75
P
W
I
+
I
+
GROlJPNO.
1.00 +
-0.25
1993
u S 1 d J
9
0
81
,.
*!.*..
**
Bt
B
L
I
---+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-0.75
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
PRIN4
11 obs hidden.
60
009376
SAS
Plot of
1. 0
HEIGHT *STEP.
0;07 Wednesday, June 2, 1993
17
Symbol used is ,*,
+
'*
0.9 +
'*
i
n 0.8 +
i
m
u
m
0.7
**
i
s
t
a 0.6 +
c
e
*
*
B 0.5 +
e
t
w
e
e 0.4 +
n
**
*'**
s
t
e
***
'**'****
0.2 +
*****
***
**
***
***
******
****
***
***
0.1 +
****'*
0.0 +
'**
*
'***
u 0.3 +
'"
**'*
***
'*
---+--------+--------+----~---+--------+--------+--------+--------+-a
18
36
54
72
90
108
126
61
009377
SAS
Plot of _HEIGHT_*STEP.
0:07 Wednesday, June 2, 1993

Symbol used is
21
'*'
1. 4 +
1.2 +
r
a
9
e 1.0+
D
'"
i
s
t
a
n 0.8 +
'*
*
e
t
w 0.6 +
e
e
*
**
**
**
C
1
u 0.4 +
s
"'**
'"
**
'*
***
**
"'***
e
r
****
***
***'"
***
*****
0.2 +
**"'***
*****
***
0.0 +
*****
****
---+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-o
18
36
54
72
90
108
126
.62
009378
NOAA/HMRAD Reference Center Bibliography, printed OlJ
5/1812010
Henry, C.B., P.O. Roberts, and E.B. Overton. 1993. Characterization of Chronic Sources and
Impacts of Tar along the Louisiana Coast OCS Study MMS 93-0046. New Orleans, LA: Minerals
Management Service. 63 pp. OSPILL1010
_ .. __ _
Roberts, P.O., C.B. Henry, Jr., and E.B. Overton. 1993. Source Targeting Tar Balls Along the
Southern Louisiana Coastline. Proceedings of the 1993 OU S12i11 Conferenc~revention,
Preparedness, Response), March 29 April 1,1993: Tampa. Florida, API Publication No. 4580.
Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. p. 891. OSPILL9012
' 'dJ
rq 5. ~ ~
H~&
I '19 ~
009379
009380
SAS
Plot of
1. 6
17
Symbol used is ,*,
HEIGHT_*STEP.
+
*
1.4 +
D
s
t
a
n 1.2 +
c
e
B
e
t 1.0 +
w
e
e
n
C 0.8 +
1
u
s
t
e
r 0.6 +
*
*
**
*
*
**
**
e
n
t
r 0.4 +
****
****
***
i
d
*****
0.2 +
*****
*****
*****
*****
*******
*****
******
******
0.0 +
---+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-o
18
36
54
72
90
108
126
STEP
63
Re: Oil Balance Presentation to NIC?
009381
Subject: Re: Oil Balance Presentation to NIC?

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:33:48 -0400
Heard that the meeting was rescheduled to Friday.
Vic and I had a good discussion with Bill Grawe rei AVRIS and using it as a real
time tool to help with oil recovery efforts. Will fill you in tomorrow
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov
fax
Original Message ----From: Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: 06/24/2.010 07: 19 PM AST
To: Martha Garcia
Subject: Oil Balance Presentation to NIC?
Martha,
I forgot to check with you. Did the Oil Budget tool get presented by Marcia to ADM
Neffenger? What is the latest timeline for operational availability? The UAC want
to be able to access it as soon as it is available.
Mark
1 of 1
9/27/20102:07 PM
009388
Briefing Document NOAA Deepwater Horizon Social Science Research Agenda

06/25/2010
Jamie Kruse
Internal Activities
Briefings to Social Science Advisory Committee by Tony Penn ORR starting April 27.
Briefing to Dr. Robinson (June 9) and creation of SS team (June 11)
DwH Social Science Box Team

o
Members-Jamie Kruse (lead), Joe Terry NMFS, Tony Penn ORR, Peter Wiley NOS,
Jennifer Sprague NWS, John Gaynor OAR, Peter Fricke NMFS, Heidi Recksiek NOS/esC,
Susan Abbott-Jamieson NMFS, Theresa Goedeke NOS/NCCOS, Kellee James WH Fellow
Meetings June 16, 2010 and June 23, 2010
Develop and integrate three short time horizon projects
Public Health and Well-being in Coastal Counties: Impact and Resiliency in the
Wake of the Deepwater Horizon Industrial-environmental Disaster.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Oral History project-DWH oral histories will provide
primary information and local experience with the oil spill in the form of rich
multi-layered narratives that will complement and enrich other data being
collected to assess social and economic changes.
Assess social and economic changes in the fishing industry and fishing patterns
that will affect eight fishery management plans implemented in the Gulf of
Mexico under MSA. The methods to be used in the study are ethnographic data
collection of social and economic information from communities and from
vessel crews.; key informant interviews; collection of demographic, economiC,
fishing industry data, and community data through a combination of rapid
appraisal techniques, ethnographic data collection, and secondary source data
collections.
Social Science Research Plan Development using overarching research questions,

mission statement, NGSP and legal authorities. Plan will include short-, intermediateand long term projects. ASSignment of team members to develop plans around four
subtopics.
Coordination with Sea Grant
Intra-agency contacts and activities
Mark Doms, DOC/BEA Chief Economist

o
Check on planned research activities. BEA providing data to CEQ/NEC who will assess
economic impact. Assembling demographic information on affected areas.
Interagency contacts and activities
Myron Gutmann, Assistant Director SSE Directorate

o
Follow up on DwH Social Science Symposium NSF wants to participate
009389
NSTC Subcommittee on Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences

o
Task assignment-Draft charge for Deepwater Horizon SSE Science Working Group in
collaboration with Carl Shapiro, 001/ USGS. Draft due July 7.
Follow up discussion with Shapiro-include Symposium as part of the working group

charge.
Rodney Cluck, DOI/MMS also indicates MMS willingness to participate in symposium.
001 is also assembling a Social Science Research Plan for Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
NSF-possibly two SS RAPIDS
009392
FW: LRM [AV-1 11-212] COMMERCE Questions for the Record on...
Subject: FW: LRM [AV-111-212] COMMERCE Questions for the Record on Response Efforts to the Gulf Coast Oil Spill
From: "Velde, Blake" <Blake.Velde@<jm.usda.gov>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:41:26 -0400
To: Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.w.Miller@noaa.gov>
OMS clearance ( I reed from our leg affairs)
Thanks!
Blake
Blake T. Vllldc. Sr. Environmental ScientlstlISD.A. NRT Member
USDA Otlice of Procurement & Property Manj,>ementiEMD
l-l.(lO Independence S W M5-91 00
Washington DC 10250-9100
.*** * ... **** **** ..... ******* ***** * ltlll c* **lIIiJlIljI '" ."'
It;
From: Griffis, Janice

To: Allen, Julie -USDA; Brown, Shirley -OCE; Green, Jackie -QBPA; Griffis, Janice; Holmes, Annette -OCE; JAMES, MAUREEN; KNIPE, MICHAEL; May, Tina;
-QBPA; Negron, Aida; RICH, LORNETHlA; Tucker, William -QBPA; Woodard, Myrlyn -OBPA; Young, Michael -QBPA
CC: Berge, John; Yezak, Jennifer; Palmieri, Suzanne; O'Brien, Doug; Velde, Blake
Subject: FW: LRM [AV-1l1-212J COMMERCE Questions for the Record on Response Efforts to the Gulf Coast Oil Spill
M~redith,
Lorraine
Please review the attached testimony and return with any edits, comments, etc. before the deadline. Thank you.
From: Ventura, Alexandra [maHto:Alexandra_Ventura@omb.eop.govJ
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 20104:53 PM
To: AGRICULlURE; DEFENSE; ENERGY; EPA; HHS; DHS; INTERIOR; JUsnCE; LABOR; SBA; STATE; TRANSPORTATION; TREASURY
CC:
Zichal, Heather R.; Aldy, Joseph E.;
Espinel, Zulima L.; Verrilli, Donald B.;
Onek, Matthew M.; Higginbottom, Heather A.; Monje, Carlos A.; Lew, Ginger; Furman, Jason L.; Avery, Heidi E.; Bahar, Michael;
Egan, Brian J.; faIT, EIi~abeth A.; Rouse, Cecilia E.; Green, Jason G.; Greenawalt, Andrei M.; Kimball, Astri B.; Bhowmik, Rachana; Nabors, Robert L.; Oleske, James M.; Ortiz,
Michael; Terrell, Louisa; Stoneman, Shelly 0.; Heimbach, James T.; Konwinski, Usa M.; Bordoff, Jason E.; Boots, Michael J.; Sweetnam, Glen E.; Munoz, Cecilia; Shapiro,
Nicholas S.; Reed, Richard A.; Bahar, Michael; Lemer, Jeffrey B.; Hawkins, Stacey T.; Lu, Christopher P.; Kamoie, Brian E.; severn, Deborah; Tynan, Susan R.; Zients, Jeffrey
D.; Liebman, Jeffrey B.; Fitzpatrick, Michael A.; Ericsson, Sally C.; Eltrich, Katherine A.; Bansal, Preeta D.; Bershteyn, Boris; Gordon, Robert M.; Baer, Kenneth S.; canfield,
Anna G.; zaidi, Ali A.; Green, Melissa G.; Weatherly, Mark A.; Lyon, Randolph M.; Levenbach, Stuart; Quinlan, John P.; Halln, David J.; Mertens, Steven M.; Oaumit, Alexander
J.; August, Lisa L.; Stack, Kathryn B.; Klein, Sarah B.; Kitti, Carole; Kinneen, Kelly; Lazzeri, Michael A.; Glickman, Gary L.; Irwin, Janet E.; Crutchfield, J Co; Hickey, Michael;
Sharp, Emily t.; Bumett, Benjamin; Barringer, Jody M.; Hart, Nicholas R.; Miller, Kimberly A.; DenniS, Carol R.; Mertens, Richard A.; Carroll, 1. Kevin; RObinson, Donovan 0.;
Luczynski, Kimberley S.; Crilley, Joseph; Stigile, Arthur W.; Winkler, Jennifer; Hurwitz, Jaki M.; Menter, Jessica N.; Gill, Brian W.; Mancini, Dominic J.; Laity, James A.; Kennedy,
Sean D.; Wilson, Denise R.; Sunstein, Cass R.; Rostker, David; Lew, Shoshana M.; Jukes, James J.; Bumim, John D.; Fitter, E. Holly; Rodgers, Marshall J.; Green, Richard E.;
Brown, James A.; Gonzalez, Oscar; Weinberg, Jeffrey A.
Subject: LRM [AV-11l-212J COMMERCe Questions for the Record on Response Efforts to the Gulf Coast Oil Spill
DEADLINE: 3:00 PM Monday, June 28, 2010

Attached for your review, please find draft Commerce (NOAA) QFRs from a May 18th hearing before the Senale Commerce, Stience, and
Transportation Committee on the response to the Gulr Coast oil spill. Please provide any comments by tbe deadline.
Tbankyou.
LRM ID: AV-1l1-212

EXECunVE OFFlCE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
Thursday, June 24, 2010
TO: Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution
FROM: GREEN, RICHARD (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
SUBJECT: LRM [AV-II 1-212] COMMERCE Questions for the Record on Response Efforts to the Gulf Coast Oil Spill
OMB CONTACT: ALEXANDRA VENTURA
E-Mail: Alexandra_Ventura@omb.eop.gov
PHONE: (202) 395-5858
FAX: (202) 395-3]09
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19.0MB requests the views of your agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship to the program of the
President. By the deadline above. please reply bye-mail or telephone, using the OMB Contact infonnation above.
Please advise us if this item will affect direct spending or receipts for the purposes of the Statutory Pay-as-You-Go Act of201 O.
Thank you.
lof2
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009393
FW: LRM [AV-111-212] CO:M:MERCE Questions for the Record on...
1-
content-DesCriPtion:~e~~~~~oeb-=e~~~~: QFRsMay18
t t T'
on en - ype.
iM 698 Deepwater MAJORITY QFRs May18 hearing to OMB 6-24-10.docx C
2of2
I Content-Encoding:
application/vnd.openxmlformatsI
'I'
base64
9/27/20102:07 PM
009394
POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

THE HONORABLE JANE LUBCHENCO, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
RESPONSE EFFORTS TO THE GULF COAST OIL SPILL
MAY 18,2010
QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN ROCKEFELLER
NOAA ON TAR BALLS IN MIAMI

QUESTION 1: It is my understanding that past studies dumping ballast water into the
Gulf of Mexico have shown that the circulation patterns bring water into the loop current,
around the keys, and up the east coast of Florida. Is it possible we'll see tar balls washing
up on Miami Beach in the next month? What other areas could we see impacted?
ANSWER: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is closely
monitoring the movement of oil from the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill to help guide effective
preparedness, response and cleanup efforts. The northern part of the Loop Current will
sometimes "pinch" off from the full Loop Current, forming an isolated circular eddy. When this
happens, any oil that has become entrained in the current will remain in a counter-clockwise
eddy circulating around the Gulf of Mexico. It is not uncommon for such an eddy to develop, or
for it to become reattached to the full Loop Current. If the eddy reconnects with the main Loop
Current, it is possible that any oil that is entrained may reach the Florida Straits, and could be
transported around the tip of Florida and into the Gulf Stream.
Currently, the majority of the surface oil slick still remains north of the Loop Current, but the
potential remains for more oil to move south from the spill site towards the Loop Current. The
Loop Current is very dynamic. Using satellite imagery, ocean observations, and aerial
observations, NOAA is closely monitoring the oil slick and the Loop Current. If a significant
amount of surface oil enters the Loop Current, NOAA will be able to detect it and will work with
the Unified Command to communicate this information.
Because both the Loop Current and Gulf Stream remain offshore, oil carried in either current will
not necessarily result in shoreline impacts. Onshore winds or eddies would need to develop to
move the oil from the Loop Current to the shore. Oil that becomes entrained in the Loop Current
would take approximately 8-12 days to reach the Florida Straits. It would take much longer for
any oil to reach the Eastern Seaboard, if ever. Given the time and distance traveled, it is
anticipated that any oil would disperse and weather significantly (to the form of scattered tar
balls) before reaching the East Coast. Due to background concentrations of tar balls on the East
Coast, it will likely be difficult to specifically detect the presence of oil related to the Deepwater
Horizon BP oil spill, especially in areas north of Florida.
NOAA's ABILITY TO RESPOND TO A SECOND SPILL RIGHT Now
009395
QUESTION 2: Obviously your Office of Response-and Restoration has been a critically

important part of the interagency response to this spill. Your ability to forecast where the
spilled oil is likely to go in the coming days has been an invaluable resource to the National
Unified Command. If another major oil spill were to occur in US waters right now, could
you provide a comparable level of response for both spills?
ANSWER: In the past, NOAA has stated that if two simultaneous medium spill events were to
occur, or one large spill such as the Exxon Valdez, NOAA would have difficulty providing the
level of response expected by the Nation. Currently, NOAA has every Scientific Support
Coordinator in the country working on the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill.
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CANTWELL
LONG-TERM MONITORING AND PROTECTION
QUESTION 1: As part of its criminal and civil settlements with the federal government,
Exxon paid hundreds-of-millions of dollars that went towards environmental monitoring,
long-term restoration, and habitat protection after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Would you
say that there will likely be a need for similar long-term monitoring and protection after
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?
ANSWER: As a trustee for natural resources, NOAA acts on behalf of the public pursuant to
the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) - and in conjunction with co-trustees - to: (1) assess injuries to
natural resources caused by the spill; and (2) develop and implement plans to restore injured
resources with damages recovered from the responsible parties or from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund. Monitoring is a component of restoration plans and is used by NOAA and cotrustees to document restoration effectiveness and the need for possible interim corrective action.
It is too early to tell what specific environmental monitoring, long-term restoration, and habitat
protection will be needed following the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill and whether it will be
similar to the Exxon Valdez settlements.
REIMBURSEMENT
QUESTION 2: Will money spent on long-term scientific monitoring (including money to

study the underwater oil plumes) be reimbursed to NOAA by the responsible party?
ANSWER: Per the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), the responsible party is liable for removal costs.
- OPA defines removal costs as the costs of removing spilled oil from water and shorelines or
taking other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or
welfare, including fish, public shorelines, and beaches. Work performed and information
- gathered by NOAA as part of the oil spill mitigation and cleanup strategies at the request of the
Federal On Scene Coordinator, such as studies of the current and forecasted position or physical
characteristics of an underwater oil plume, would fall within this definition and be reimbursed
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. (The Fund becomes subrogated to NOAA's rights to
recover from the responsible party under OPA.) Also, under OPA, the responsible party's
liability includes NOAA's and co-trustees' reasonable costs of assessing natural resource
damages. Consequently, trustee costs associated with identifying the nature and extent of the
009396
oil's adverse impacts to public natural resources (e.g., sensitive coastal habitat, threatened and
endangered species, public beaches, and fishing grounds) would be part of the Natural Resource
Damage Assessment (NRDA) and reimbursable by the responsible party. Not all long-term
studies, however, satisfy these criteria. Longer term studies that are not associated with
determining injuries to natural resources and/or services resulting from the spill or are not a
component of a restoration plan (as discussed above) would not be reimbursable under the
NRDA process.
QUESTION 3: Will the government be able to force the responsible party to cover the costs
of needed oil spill related monitoring and study tive, ten, and twenty years from now?
ANSWER: Under the Oil Pollution Act, damages that are recoverable by a natural resource
trustee include "the reasonable costs of assessing the damage." Costs associated with
understanding the impacts of this spill to public natural resources (e.g., sensitive coastal habitat,
threatened and endangered species, public beaches, and fishing grounds) would be part of the
Natural Resource Damage Assessment and are reimbursable to NOAA and other co-trustees.
The period of time for which assessment activities will be conducted is not known at present.
However, longer term studies that identify the nature and extent of injuries to natural resources
and services caused by the spill could potentially be considered reasonable damage assessment
costs for which the responsible party is liable. Alternatively, longer term monitoring may also be
a component of a restoration plan (for which the responsible party is liable) as discussed in the
response to Question 1.
On May 24, 2010, BP announced a commitment of up to $500 million to an "open research
program" for studying the impact of the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill and its associated
response, on the marine and shoreline environment of the Gulf of Mexico. It is expected that this
funding will directly support some of the long-term monitoring study needs associated with this
catastrophic spill.
MMS
4. On September 21, 2009, you sent a letter to the Director of MMS expressing concerns
that MMS consistently understated the risks and impacts of oil spills in its Draft Proposed
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
a) When NOAA identities problems with MMS plans or environmental analyses, is
there anything forcing MMS to listen to you, or do they have free reign to ignore
NOAA?
b) Does NOAA have any recourse if it thinks that MMS is allowing activities that
aren't worth the environmental risk?
ANSWER: As the primary federal ocean science and management agency that is charged with
trust responsibilities over living marine resources, NOAA is actively involved in the Minerals
Management Service's (MMS) multi-stage Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas process.
NOAA participates in a number of ways and under a variety of statutes, some of which provide
NOAA a more significant role than others do in the OCS decision-making process.
3
009397
Under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the Secretary of the
Interior is required to "invite and consider suggestions" from NOAA as he develops a 5-Year
Leasing Program. Moreover, the Secretary of the Interior has a responsibility to conduct
environmental studies of any area or region included in any oil and gas lease sale, and to include
NOAA in this process to the maximum extent practicable. OCSLA does not require MMS to
adopt NOAA's comments.
There are, however, other opportunities for NOAA to playa more central role in MMS' offshore
program. NOAA's existing authorities such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine
Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA),
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) apply to various stages of the OCS process. In each.
stage ofMMS's process, NOAA has varying degrees of influence, depending on the specific
statutory provision. For example, MMS is required to comply with terms and conditions
stemming from a consultation (e.g., under ESA), may simply be required to respond to NOAA if
it chooses not to accept NOAA's recommendations (e.g., Essential Fish Habitat consultations
under MSA or NMSA), or may be precluded from issuing any license or permit if the Secretary
of Commerce upholds a State objection (e.g., under CZMA).
Finally, in the case of NOAA's comments on a draft Environmental Impact Statement under
NEP A, MMS would, when preparing a final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), be
required to assess and consider NOAA's comments, and respond by either incorporating
information from the comments into the FE IS or explain why the comments do not warrant
further agency response. If NOAA was not satisfied with the MMS response to its comments in
a FEIS, the agencies would attempt to resolve the differences through negotiations. If the issue
was significant and resolution was not possible, NOAA would have the option of referring it for
resolution to the Council on Environmental Quality.
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR KERRY
GAPS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
QUESTION 1: I understand that there may be gaps in international law relating to oil
spills, since existing treaties address spills from tankers but not spills from platforms or
rigs like the Deepwater Horizon. Is that accurate? Is the Administration currently taking
any actions to address these legal gaps?
ANSWER: There are gaps in international law relating to oil spills. For ex~ple, there is no
binding international agreement that regulates the installation and operationof offshore oil
drilling equipment, such as blowout preventers and wellheads. However, with the exception of
joining the Law of the Sea Convention, which the Administration strongly supports, these are not
gaps that the U.S. need fill as our domestic regime is comprehensive and generally more
stringent than international rules that do exist. The Law of the Sea Convention contains three
articles that are relevant to an oil spill with transboundary affects.
009398
Article 198 provides "When a State becomes aware of cases in which the marine environment is
in imminent danger of being damaged or has been damaged by pollution, it shall immediately
notify other States it deems likely to be affected by such damage, as well as the competent
international organizations."
Article 199 provides !lin the cases referred to in article 198, States in the area affected, in
accordance with their capabilities, and the competent international organizations shall cooperate,
to the extent possible, in eliminating the effects of pollution and preventing or minimizing the
damage. To this end, States shall jointly develop and promote contingency plans for responding
to pollution incidents in the marine environment."
Article 208 provides "1. Coastal States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and
control pollution of the marine environment arising from or in connection with seabed activities
subject to their jurisdiction and from artificial islands, installations and structures under their
jurisdiction pursuant to articles 60 and 80. 2. States shall take other measures as may be
necessary to prevent, reduce and control such pollution. 3. Such laws, regulations and measures
shall be no less effective than international rules, standards and recommended practices and
procedures. 4. States shall endeavour to hannonize their policies in this connection at the
appropriate regional level. 5. States, acting through competent international organizations or
diplomatic conference, shall establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended
practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment
referred to in paragraph 1. Such rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures
shall be reexamined from time to time as necessary."
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MCCASKILL

THE JOINT INFORMATION CENTER
QUESTION 1: The Deepwater Horizon Unified Command has been operating a Joint
Information Center (JIC) since the first days of the spill. The JIC has and continues to
receive submissions for alternative response technology, services or products.
a) How many submissions has the JIC received?
b) How many submissions have been responded to?
c) What is the JIC's process for vetting these submissions, and how many submissions
have been brought to the attention of JIC leadership?
ANSWER: The Joint Infonnation Center (JIC) is not directly involved in receiving or reviewing
submissions. BP has established the Alternative Response Technology (ART) program to review
and evaluate suggestions. There have been more than 40,000 proposals submitted. BP has a
team of 30 engineers and technical and operational experts review the technical feasibility and
application of each idea. Given the quantity of the proposals, the technical review can take some
time. Each idea is sorted into one of three categories: (1) not possible or not feasible in these
conditions; (2) already considered and planned; and (3) feasible. The feasible ideas are then
escalated for more detailed review, potential testing and field application. As of early June,
around 250 ideas are under further review for potential field testing/implementation. Each
submitter receives a reply infonning them of the outcome. Ideas considered feasible by the
5
009399
ARTs program are brought to the attention ofthe Unified Command which then contacts the
person who submitted the proposal.
The National Incident Command is also developing an Interagency Alternative Technology
Assessment Program (IATAP), which will be used by federal agencies to evaluate alternative
response/technology submissions (whereas the ARTs program is a BP effort). In addition to
NOAA, the participating federal agencies include MMS, the Environmental Protection Agency,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Maritime Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard recently released a Broad Agency Advertisement to solicit proposals. The
IATEP will work in cooperation with the ARTs program. The JIC is providing any suggestions
that they receive to IATAP as well as to BP for review by the ART program.
ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES
QUESTION 2: It is my understanding that Louisiana officials have met with and reviewed
alternative response technologies, including those proposed by Show Me Energy.
a) How closely is the JIC working with state and local governments in reviewing
alternative response technologies?
_ b) What process is in place to share information and ideas with state and local
governments?
ANSWER: The Joint Information Center is providing any suggestions that they receive for
review to both the Alternative Response Technology program set up by BP and the Interagency
Alternative Technology Assessment Program, which will review all submitted proposals (as
discussed in the response to Question 1). As proposals are approved for field application, this
information is shared with state and local governments.
TAR BALLS
QUESTION 3: As you know, the Coast Guard has detected the presence of dozens of "tar
balls" approaching the Florida coast, suggesting that the Gulf Coast oil spill has traveled
throughout the Gulf Coast region.
a) How do you plan to determine whether these tar balls are indeed a product of the
Deepwater Horizon spill?
ANSWER: Tar balls from the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill have washed ashore along the
Florida panhandle. Tar balls reported in southern Florida have been collected and analyzed at a
laboratory to determine if the tar balls are from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. To date, no tar
balls collected in southern Florida have originated from the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill.
b) In light of the failed remediation strategies that have been tried thus far, how does
the Unified Command plan to prevent this eastward expansion of the spill?
ANSWER: The Unified Command will continue with an aggressive response to mitigate the
impacts from the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill. This includes the use of skimmers, in-situ
009400
bums, and dispersants. The Unified Command will not relent in efforts to protect the livelihoods
of Gulf Coast residents and mitigate the environmental impacts of this spill.
SPILL IMPACT ON MISSISSIPPI BARGE TRAFFIC
QUESTION: 4. As you know, six of the ten leading U.S. ports are located in the Gulf of
Mexico region, hosting some of the largest tonnage ships in the nation. At this time, the oil
spill has yet to impact barge traffic on the Mississippi River, although the spill is
approaching the river's mouth. How does your agency plan to prevent the spill from
reaching the mouth of the river, thereby maintaining the ability to continue normal levels
of barge traffic along the Mississippi?
ANSWER: NOAA continues to work with our partner agencies to prevent oil from reaching
areas such as the mouth of the Mississippi River. As part of this effort, NOAA's Office of Coast
Survey has issued a caution to mariners to identify where the spill is so that they can avoid it
where possible. NOAA's Office of Coast Survey has also supported surveys of anchorage areas
to enable the U.S. Coast Guard to clean vessels prior to their entrance into the Mississippi River,
to avoid inadvertent transfer of oil into the river. NOAA is also frequently updating its chart
graphics of the region to ensure first responders have the latest actual and predicted spill
locations and caution areas at hand. The goal is to help mariners and commercial shipping
continue marine transportation operations in the most normal manner possible.
CONTRACTOR OVERSIGHT
QUESTION 5: As you know, the government response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
included the contracting of services to private firms. The Government Accountability
Office, in their review of contracting activities following these disasters, noted a lack of
clearly communicated responsibilities across agencies and jurisdictions and insufficient
numbers and inadequate deployment of personnel to provide for effective contractor
oversight.
a) What specific activities will your department be seeking to contract out or are you
already relying on contractors to carry out? Please explain why each activity is
appropriate for a contractor to handle
b) What are the preliminary cost estimates for contracted out response activities?
c) How does your agency intend to work with other agencies to prevent the issues we
experienced during the Katrina response from arising in this instance?
d) How many personnel have been deployed to the Gulf Coast to ensure that
contractor abuses are prevented and that there is adequate oversight of contractor
performance?
ANSWER: NOAA is using contractors in several areas to support the response to the
Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill, and preliminary cost estimates for those contracts is $3.9
million. NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration is using contractor support for activities
including information management, shoreline assessment teams, data collection during
monitoring surveys, and data collection for the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process.
We do not have an estimate for the number of personnel specifically deployed to oversee
009401
contract performance, because many of NOAA's activities are being supported through existing
program contractors with established contractual relationships. NOAA has mechanisms in place
to oversee its contractors, including having federal employees on-scene with the contractors and
as federal task leads on the contracts. Contractors are an integral part of how NOAA operates,
and NOAA has a strong track record with contract oversight and does not foresee problems with
its contract oversight.,
009402
New myUSGS Accotult
Subject: New myUSGS Account

From: "myusgs@usgs.gov" <myusgs@usgs.gov>.
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:29:59 -0600 (MDT)
To: "Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Mark,
This is an account and password you can use to access the Oil Budget tool we are
developing on our beta servers. We've been granting folks who have been involved
with the project access to the application for review and comment. The
application can be accessed at https:/lmy-beta.usgs.gov/oilBudget/. We're just
about ready to go live with this, and we'll send a follow-up email with a little
more information.
Note: You will have the same account when we go to production, but you'll just
need to change your password. You'll see a link to change your password when you
login.
=
To enter myUSGS go to: http://my.usgs.gov/
Passwords expire after 90 days.
You may change your password/ by going to http://my.usgs.gov/home/myAccount
/editPassword
lofl
9/27/20102:07 PM
Comnumicating new new Oil Budget model
009403
Subject: Communicating new new Oil Budget model

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11 :51 :48 -0600
To: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@nQaa.gov>,
Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>
CC: Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern
<kernt@usgs.gov>
Greetings,
We are just about ready to go live with the first iteration of the Web tool for
the Oil Budget. We need your help and perhaps that of other "science advisors" on
the Deepwater Horizon incident response. This application and the new NOAA model
produces different numbers and graphics than the Coast Guard has grown accustomed
to with LT Charity Drew's spreadsheet. The model is also still slightly in flux
with Bill Lehr's team reviewing the actual data and output now, and they may
introduce changes in coming days. We and Bill have validated all current
calculations and formulas in the current model for consistency with their latest
document.
I'm not sure who all is responsible for this aspect of things, but I trust that
you all have this well in hand (my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong).
To help you make any determinations on necessary communication, you all have full
access to the application in beta here:
https:l/my-beta.usgs.gov/oilBudget/
Martha and Mark Sogge login with USGS credentials, and Mark Miller should have
received an email from myusgs@usgs.gov with a password to use with your email
address.
Major changes since the demos earlier this week:
- Added a first cut at the barrel graph
-- Will be adding the cumulative total numbers to the graph
-- Will be changing the layout to provide both graphs with tabs in the Web
interface
-- Only the latest day will show the cumulative Disposition of Oil barrel graph
for the first iteration. This is an "expensive" graphic from a computer processor
standpoint, and we are working on an optimization scheme so that every day will
show this graphic.
- Added annotations as clickable links behind summary table items and as endnotes
in the printed PDF output. These come partially from Bill Lehr's latest document,
but we could use a review on the content. I can show you how to edit that
directly as managers if you want, or you can send me the edits.
- Added an Excel spreadsheet output option that dumps out all current data and
the entire calculation model into a fully workable form. This is a "flattened"
and somewhat non-optimized form of the entire oil budget model, but it is fully
workable and offers options for custom graphing and other features. This is what
we provided to Bill Lehr and his team for review.
I think we've also taken care of all the "little things" people requested at
different times (e.g.( line graphs on the same scale, etc.).
Please provide any comments or suggestions you may have. We'll be releasing this
to a production address later today, and we will let you know. At that time, the
beta address will shift to taking on new features for testing that will be
10f2
9/27/20102:07 PM
Communicating new new Oil Budget model
009404
released incrementally to production.

Thank you.
<. ((
(<--~-<.
(( ----<. ((
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. ( ( -~-~<. ( ( ----<. ( (
2 of2
9/27/20102:07 PM
Re: Communicating new new Oil Budget model
009405
Subject: Re: Communicating new new Oil Budget model

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:55:56 -0500
CC: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, David Mack
<mackd@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Martha Garcia
<mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Hi Sky,
Am backed up with things, so can't give this a lot of attention today. However, my sense is that Bill Lehr is still
trying to get feedback on what appear to be oddities in the data pattern. Perhaps I am working off outdated
knowledge. But if BilVNOAA does not have full confidence in the calculations yet, I think it is premature to
release.
'
Martha - you may have more current knowledge or a different opinion ... I welcome your input here.
Mark
Mark Sogge
2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ. 86001
mark_sogge@usgs.gov
From:
To:
Nlark K Sogge <mariLsogge@usgs.gov>. lllark Miler <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>. lllartha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Cc:
Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>. David lllack <mackd@usgs.gov>, TIm Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Date:
0612512010 12:51 PM
SubjeCt:
Greetings,
We are just about ready to go live with the first iteration of the Web tool for the Oil Budget. We need your
help and perhaps that of other "science advisors" on the Deepwater Horizon incident response. This
application and the new NOAA model produces different numbers and graphics than the Coast Guard has grown
accustomed to with LT Charity Drew's spreadsheet. The model is also still slightly in flux with 5ill Lehr's
team reViewing the actual data and output now, and they may introduce changes in coming days. We and Bill
have validated all current calculations and formulas in the current model for consistency with their latest
document.
I'm not sure who all is responsible for this aspect of things, but I trust that you all have this well in
hand (my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong).
To help you make any determinations on necessary communication, you all have full access to the application
in beta here:
https:llmy-beta.us9s.gov /oi15Udget/
Martha and Mark Sogge login with USGS credentials, and Mark Miller should have received an email from
myusgs@usgs.gov with a password to use with your email address.
10f2
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009406

Added a first cut at the barrel graph
Will be adding the cumulative total numbers to the graph
Will be changing the layout to provide both graphs with tabs in the Web interface
Only the latest day will show the cumulative Disposition of Oil barrel graph for the first iteration. This
is an "expensive" graphic from a computer processor standpoint, and we are working on an optimization scheme
so that every day will show this graphic.
Added annotations as clickable links behind summary table items and as endnotes in the printed PDF output.
These come partially from Bill Lehr's latest document, but we could use a review on the content. I can show
you how to edit that directly as managers if you want, or you can send me the edits.
Added an Excel spreadsheet output option that dumps out all current data and the entire calculation model
into a fully workable form. This is a "flattened" and somewhat non-optimized form of the entire oil budget
model, but it
fully workable and offers options for custom graphing and other features. This is what we
provided to
Lehr and his team for review.
I think we've also taken care of all the "little things" people requested at different times (e.g., line
graphs on the same scale, etc.).
Please provide any comments or suggestions you may have. We'll be releasing this to a production address
later today, and we will let you know. At that time, the beta address will shift to taking on new features
for testing that will be released incrementally to production.
Thank you.
<. ----<. ( ( (<----<. ( <<<

Sky Bristol
----<.
2 of2
----<. ( ( (<
9/27/20102:07 PM
Re: Corrnnunicating new new Oil Budget model
009407

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:00:54 -0400
To: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
CC: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, David Mack
<mackd@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Sky, waiting a day is okay if we need it. Just received an email indicating that CG senior staff are interested in
seeing the product.
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov

From: Mark K Sogge
Sent: 06/25/2010 12:55 PM CDT
To: Sky Bristol
Cc: Tim Kern; Kevin Gallagher; David Mack; Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>; Martha Garcia
Hi Sky,
Am backed up with things, so can't give this a lot of attention today. However, my sense is that Bill Lehr is still
trying to get feedback on what appear to be oddities in the data pattern. Perhaps I am working off outdated
knowledge. But if BilVNOAA does not have full confidence in the calculations yet, I think it is premature to
release.
Martha - you may have more current knowledge or a different opinion ... I welcome your input here.
Mark
MarkSogge
From:
To:
Cc:
Date:
Subject:
lof2
Sky Bristol sbristol@usgs.gov>

Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>. Mark Miler <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>. Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>. David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>. Tim Kern <kemt@usgs.gov>
06125f2010 12:51 PM
9/27/20102:07 PM
009408
Greetings,
We are just about ready to go live with the first iteration of the Web tool for the Oil Budget. We need your
help and perhaps that of other "science advisors" on the Deepwater Horizon incident response. This
application and the new NOAA model produces different numbers and graphics than the Coast Guard has grown
accustomed to with LT Charity Drew's spreadsheet. The model is also still slightly in flux with Bill Lehr's
team reviewing the actual data and output now, and they may introduce changes in coming days. We and Bill
have validated all current calculations and formulas in the current model for consistency with their latest
document.
I'm not sure who all is responsible for this aspect of things, but I trust that you all have this well in
hand (my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong).
To help you make any determinations on necessary communication, you all have full access to the application
in beta here:
https:!lmy-beta.usgs.gov!oilBudget!
Major Changes since the demos earlier this week:
Will be changing the layout to provide both graphs with tabs in the Web interface
Only the latest day will show the cumulative Disposition of Oil barrel graph for the first iteration. This
is an "expensive" graphic from a computer processor standpoint, and we are working on an optimization scheme
so that every day will show this graphic.
- Added annotations as clickable links behind summary table items and as endnotes in the printed PDF output.
These come partially from Bill Lehr's latest document, but we could use a review on the content. I can show
you how to edit that directly as managers if you want, or you can send me the edits.
- Added an Excel spreadsheet output option that dumps out all current data and the entire calculation model
into a fully workable form. This is a "flattened" and somewhat non-optimized form of the entire oil budget
model, but it is fully workable and offers options for custom graphing and other features. This is what we
provided to Bill Lehr and his team for review.
I think we've also taken care of all the "little things" people requested at different times (e.g., line
graphs on the same scale, etc.).
Please provide any comments or suggestions you may have. We'll be releasing this to a production address
later today, and we will let you know. At that time, the beta address will shift to taking on new features
for testing that will be released incrementally to production.
Thank you.
<. ( ((<----<. ( ( ----<. ((

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. ((
20f2
--<. ((
9/27/20102:07 PM
009409

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:03:58 -0600
To: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
CC: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, David Mack
<mackd@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Martha Garcia
<mgarcia@usgs.gov>
I tend to agree, although Bill hasn't said the model is wrong; just in need of some
adjustments. It is outside my purview to make that call, but totally up to you all. I would just
ask that someone communicate that to CDR Hoffman/CDR O'Brien and any other NIC
personnel so that they understand the current situation and adjustments to the timeline.
We can go ahead with technically getting this application to where it needs to be and wait
on the science advisory determination on when we open it up for Coast Guard/NIC use.
<.( <<<----<.( <<<----<.( <<<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<.( <<<----<.(<----<.(<
On Jun 25, 2010, at 11 :55 AM, Mark K Sogge wrote:
!I
Hi Sky,
, Am backed up with things, so can't give this a lot of attention today. However, my sense is that Bill Lehr is
! still trying to get feedback on what appear to be oddities in the data pattern. Perhaps I am working off
I outdated knowledge. But if Bill/NOAA does not have full confidence in the calculations yet, I think it is
I premature to release.
II Martha - you may have more current knowledge or a different opinion... I welcome your input here.
I Mark
II
Mark Sogge
.
" Chief of Staff, USGS Western Region
.
mark sogge@usgs.gov
I!
I
"
lof2
From:
To:

Mark K Sogge ,MarkMller<mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>,Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.QOV>
Cc:
Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Oavid Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Tim Kem <kemt@usgs.gov>
Date:
06/251201012:51 PM
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009410
Greetings,
We are just about ready to go live with the first iteration of the Web tool for the Oil Budget. We need
your help and perhaps that of other "science advisors" on the Deepwater Horizon incident response. This
application and tpe new NOAA model produces different numbers and graphics than the Coast Guard has
grown accustomed to with LT Charity Drew's spreadsheet. The model is also still slightly in flux with
Bill Lehr's team reviewing the actual data and output now, and they may introduce changes in coming
days. We and Bill have validated all current calculations and formulas in the current model for
consistency with their latest document.
I'm not sure who all is responsible for this aspect of things, but I trust that you all have this well
in hand (my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong) .
To help you make any determinations on necessary communication, you all have full access to the
application in beta here:
https://my-beta.usgs.gov/oilBudget/
Martha and Mark Sogge login with OSGS credentials, and Mark Miller should have received an email from
myusas@usgs.qov with a password to use with your email address.
-- Will be changing the layout to provide both graphs with tabs in the Web interface
-- Only the latest day will show the cumulative Disposition of Oil barrel graph for the first
iteration. This is an "expensive" graphic from a computer processor standpoint, and we are working on
an optimization scheme so that every day will show this graphic.
Added annotations as clickable links behind summary table items and as endnotes in the printed PDF
output. These come partially from Bill Lehr's latest document, but we could use a review on the
content. I can show you how to edit that directly as managers if you want, or you can send me the
edits.
- Added an Excel spreadsheet output option that dumps out all current data and the entire calculation
model into a fully workable form. This is a "flattened" and somewhat non-optimized form of the entire
oil budget model, but it is fully workable and offers options for custom graphing and other features.
This is what we provided to Bill Lehr and his team for review.
I think we've also taken care of all the "little things" people requested at different times (e.g.,
line graphs on the same scale, etc.).
Please provide any comments or suggestions you may have. We'll be releasing this to a production
address later today, and we will let you know. At that time, the beta address will shift to taking on
new features for testing that will be released incrementally to production.
Thank you.
<.
----<. ----<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
2of2
9/27/20102:07 PM
FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3542-3544
009411
Subject: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3542-3544 .

From: NIC-RFI-1 <NIC-RFI-1@uscg.mil>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:05:36 -0400
To: HQS-OG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP <NIC-HQIASG@uscg.mil>
CC: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit <NIC-HQ-Situation-Unit@uscg.mil>
Good Afternoon,
RFI below requests confirmation on the Russian article (broken out into 3 Q's
below). We are hoping the IASG will be able to answer.
Thank you for your assistance.
vir,
LT Christine Kimak
Situation Unit

To: Jones, Melinda; HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit; HQS-DG-LST-CG DCO-Incident
Support Team; Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc:
, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott CDR; Mackenzie,
Nathan LT: Mason, Robert: McLaughlin, Daniel CDR; Morrison, Stephanie LCDR;
Warren, Robert CDR: Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn CDR; St.
John, Jordan; Wright, Howard CDR; Derian, Matthew LT: Lauzon, Michelle CTR; Naff,
Beth LCDR: Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPT: Didominicus, Lou; Re, Joseph
CAPTi Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Goad, Michael; Reese, Tamekia; Smith, Beverly;
Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger; Amidon, Dalei
Armstrong, Richard LT: Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn,
Patrick CAPT: Hallock, Johnene LT; Harker, Thomas CDR; Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR:
Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR; Keffer, Benjamin LT; Lomba, Manuel LCDR;
Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR: Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson, Robert CAPTi
Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-Ist-CG-821: HQS-DGIst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR: Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela; Manzi,
Kathryn; Martyn, David CTR; McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William CTR; Smith,
Derek LCDR; hqs-dg-Ist-dcms-82: Medina, Lizette; Montgomery, Patrick LT;
Thompson, Matthew LCDR; Grawe, William; Guinee, Pauli Thurber, Margaret; Thuring,
Allen; Camp, Claudia CDR; Thomas, Feba
Subject: RE: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQl: Q&A#3542-3544
Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
Jason Yanussi of Senator Lieberman's staff is requesting that the Coast Guard
qualify the following claims made by a Russian academic in below article.
-----Original Message----From: Jones, Melinda [mailto:Melinda.E.Jones@uscg.dhs.gov]
To: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit; HQS-DG-LST-CG DCO-Incident Support Team;
Offut.t, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Jones, Melinda; Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott CDR;
Mackenzie, Nathan LT; Mason, Robert; McLaughlin, Daniel CDR; Morrison, Stephanie
LCDRi Warren, Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn
CDR; St. John, Jordan; Wright, Howard CDR; Derian, Matthew LT; Lauzon, Michelle
CTR; Naff, Beth LCDR; Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPTi Didominicus, Lou;
Re, Joseph CAPT; Bouziane, Michele LCDRi Goad, Michael; Reese, Tamekiai Smith,
lof4
9/27/20102:07 PM
009412
Beverly; Venckus, Stevei Carpenter, Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger;

Amidon, Dale; Armstrong, Richard LTi Bromell, Roberti Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta,
Carlos; Flynn, Patrick CAPT; Hallock, Johnene LTi Harker, Thomas CDR; Hellberg,
Jonathan LCDRi Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDRi Keffer, Benjamin LTi Lomba,
Manuel LCDRi Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson,
Robert CAPT; Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-lst-CG-821i
HQS-DG-lst-CG-822i Coe, Shannah CTRi Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela;
Manzi, Kathryn; Martyn, David CTR; McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William CTR;
Smith, Derek LCDR; hqs-dg-lst-dcms-82i Medina, Lizettei Montgomery, Patrick LTi
Thompson, Matthew LCDRi Grawe, William; Guinee, Paul; Thurber, Margaret; Thuring,
Subject: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3542-3544
Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
Jason Yanussi of Senator Lieberman's staff has requested a responses. to the below
questions.
Background: Following the notification that the POLAR SEA will not be available
until at least January 2011, Mr. Chuck Banks (Murkowski) was reviewing the
timeline that the CG provided in on Dec 12, 2009 (Q 2144 attached for reference)
which states that the POLAR STAR will be ready for operations in Dec 2010. In a
briefing to Senate staff on Jan 6, 2009, (ppt attached for reference) the
timeline shows the Polar Star reactivation complete during the last quarter of CY
2011.
TIMELINE: No later than 1500, 25 June
ASSIGNMENTS:
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3542: The Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured "beyond all
repair" and our World should begin preparing for an ecological disaster "beyond
comprehension" unless "extraordinary measures" are undertaken.
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3543: According to Sagalevich's report, the oil leaking into the
Gulf of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown on
American television, but from at least 18 other sites on the "fractured
seafloor" with the largest being nearly 11 kilometers (7 miles) from where the
Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these precious waters an estimated 2
million gallons of oil a day.
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3544: As a prominent oil-industry insider, and one of the World's
leading experts on peak oil, Simmons further warns that the US has only two
options, "let the well run dry (taking 30 years, and probably ruining the
Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well.
Database Access: <file:III\\hgs-nas-t-001\CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearings\Database
\Qlndex.2010.xlsm>
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
BACKGROUND
2of4
9/27/20102:07 PM
009413
"BP.A dire report circulating in the Kremlin today tha~ was prepared forPrime
Minister Putin by Anatoly Sagalevich of Russia's Shirshovlnstitute of Oceanology
warns that the Gulf of Mexico sea floor has beenfractured "beyond all repair"
and our World should begin preparing foran ecological disaster "beyond
comprehension" unless "extraordinarymeasures" are undertaken to
the massive
flow of oil into ourPlanet's eleventh largest body of water.Most important to
note about Sagalevich's warning is that he and hisfellow scientists from the
Russian Academy of Sciences are the onlyhuman beings to have actually been to
the Gulf of Mexico oil leak siteafter their being called to the disaster scene
by British oil giant BPshortly after the April 22nd
of the Deepwater
Horizon oilplatform.BP's calling on Sagalevich after this
began is
due to hisbeing the holder of the World's record for the
freshwater
diveand his expertise with Russia's two Deep Submergence Vehicles MIR 1 andMIR 2
[photo below] which are able to take their crews to the depth of6,000 meters
(19,685 ft) .According to Sagalevich's report, the oil leaking into the Gulf
of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site
shown
onAmerican television,
but from at least 18 other sites on the
"fracturedseafloor" with the largest being nearly 11 kilometres (7 miles)
fromwhere the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these preciouswaters an
estimated 2 million gallons of oil a day. Interesting to note in this report is
stating that he and theother Russian scientists were required by the
United States to signdocuments forbidding them to report their findings to
either theAmerican public or media, and which they had to do in order to
legallyoperate in US territorial waters.However,
Sagalevich says that he and the
other scientists gave nearlyhourly updates to both US government and BP
s about what theywere seeing on the sea floor, including the US Senator
from their Stateof Florida Bill Nelson who after one such brie
stated to the
MSNBCnews service "Andrea we're looking into something new
now,
thatthere's reports of oil that's seeping up from the seabed ... which
wouldindicate, if that's true, that the well casing itself is
underneath the seabed. So,
you know, the problems could bejust enormous with
what we're facing. "Though not directly stated in Sagalevich's
, Russian
scientistsfindings on the true state of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are
beyonddoubt being leaked to his long-time friend, and former US PresidentGeorge
W. Bush's top energy advisor Matthew Simmons, who US mediareports state has
openly said: "Matthew Simmons is sticking by his story that there's another giant
leak in the Gulf of Mexico blowing massiveamounts of oil into the Gulf of
Mexico. On eNBC's Fast Money, he sayshe'd be surprised if BP lasted this summer,
this is disaster isentirely BP's fault."As a prominent oil-industry
insider, and one of the World's leadingexperts on peak oil, Simmons further
warns that the US has only twooptions, "let the well run dry (taking 30 years,
and probably ruiningthe Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well."Obama's government,
on the other hand, has stated that a nuclear optionfor ending this catastrophe
is not being discussed, but which brings himinto conflict with both Russian and
American experts advocating such anextreme measure before all is lost, and as we
can read as reported byBritain's Telegraph News Service:"The former Soviet Union
(U.S.S.R.) used nuclear weapons on fiveseparate occasions between 1966 and 1981
to successfully cap blown-outgas and oil surface wells (there was also one
attempt that failed},which have been documented in a U.. S. Department of Energy
on theU.S.S.R. 's peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.Russia is now
urging the United States to consider doing the same.Kornsomoloskaya Pravda,
the
best-selling Russian daily newspaper, assertsthat although based on Soviet
experience there's a one-in-five chance anuke might not seal the well, it's "a
gamble the Americans couldcertainly risk."Reportedly,
the U.S.S.R. developed
nuclear devices explicitlyfor closing blown-out gas wells, theorizing
that the blast from anuclear detonation would plug any hole within 25 to 50
meters, dependingon the device's power. Much as I had idly imagined, massive
explosionscan be employed to collapse a runaway well on itself, thus plugging,
orat least substantially stanching, the flow of oil .. "Seafloor nuclear
detonation is starting to sound surprisingly feasibleand appropriate,"
University of Texas at Austin mechanical engineer Michael E. Webber is quoted
observing, while Columbia Universityvisiting scholar on nuclear policy and
former naval officer ChristopherBrownfield wrote in the Daily Beast: "We should
30f4
9/27/20102:07 PM
009414
have demolished thiswell with explosives over a month ago. And yet we watch in
excruciatingsuspense while BP fumbles through plan after plan to recover its oil
andcover its asset."As to the reason for Obama's government refusing to consider
nuking thisoil well, Sagalevich states in this report that the American's
"mainconcern" is not the environmental catastrophe this disaster is causing,but
rather what the impact of using a nuclear weapon to stop this leakwould have on
the continued production of oil from the Gulf of Mexico, and which in an energy
starved World's remains the Planet's only oilproducing region able to increase
its production."
And here's the Slate link:
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2257332/?wpisrc=news 1 etter
4of4
9/27/20102:07 PM
Re: Conummicating new new Oil Budget model
009415

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:05:41 -0400
To: 5ky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark K 50gge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
CC: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, David Mack
<mackd@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Sounds like a good plan. No problem with the CG, they want it right. So let's take the time we need
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov

From: Sky Bristol [sbristol@usgs.gov]
Sent: 06/25/2010 12:03 PM CST
To: Mark Sogge
I tend to agree, although Bill hasn't said the model is wrong; just in need of some
adjustments. It is outside my purview to make that call, but totally up to you all. I would just
ask that someone communicate that to CDR Hoffman/CDR O'Brien and any other NIC
personnel so that they understand the current situation and adjustments to the timeline.
We can go ahead with technically getting this application to where it needs to be and wait
on the science advisory determination on when we open it up for Coast Guard/NIC use.
<.(<----<.----<.(<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<.----<.----<.
On Jun 25, 2010, at 11 :55 AM, Mark K 50gge wrote:
Hi Sky,
Am backed up with things, so can't give this a lot of attention today. However, my sense is that Bill Lehr is
still trying to get feedback on what appear to be oddities in the data pattern. Perhaps I am working off
outdated knowledge. But if BiII/NOAA does not have full confidence in the calculations yet, I think it is
premature to release.
Martha - you may have more current knowledge or a different opinion... I welcome your input here.
100
9/27/20102:07 PM
Re: Comrmmicating new new Oil Budget model
009416
Mark
Mark Sogge
From:
To:
Cc:
Date:
Subject:

Mark K Sogge , Mark Miler <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>, Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
06/251201012:51 PM
Greetings,
application and the new NOAA model produces different numbers and graphics than the Coast Guard has
in hand (my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong).
https:llmy-beta.usgs.gov/oiIBudget/
- Added annotations as clickable links behind summary table items and as endnotes in the printed PDF
edits.
line graphs on the same scale, etc.).
Thank you.
2of3
9/27/20102:07 PM
<. (
~-~~<.
~---<.
009417
(<
Sky Bristol
<. ( ( ----<. ( ( ----<.
3 of3
( (
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009418

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:05:57 -0600
CC: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, Kevin T
Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller
Okay. Let me know if you all have the access you need to go ahead and familiarize
yourselves and show the application at will or if you would like us to set up a remote
conference. Either way is fine with us.
<.((( <<<----<.((( <<<----<.(((<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<.((( <<<----<.((( <<<----<.((( <<<
Sky, waiting a day is okay if we need it. Just received an email indicating that CG senior staff are
interested in seeing the product.
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov
From: Mark K Sogge

Sent: 06/25/2010 12:55 PM CDT
To: Sky Bristol
II
I
Hi Sky,
I
! Am backed up with things, so can't give this a lot of attention today. However, my sense is that Bill Lehr is
I still trying to get feedback on what appear to be oddities in the data pattern.
I outdated knowledge.
!
I'
f
Perhaps I am working off

But if Bill/NOAA does not have full confidence in the calculations yet, I think it is
premature to release.
, Martha - you may have more current knowledge or a different opinion ... I welcome your input here.
I Mark
10f3
9/27/20102:07 PM
009419
Mark Sogge
2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001
mark sogge@usgs.gov
From:
To:
Mark K Sogge , Mark Miler <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>. Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.Qov>
Cc:
Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>. David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Tim Kem <kernt@usgs.gov>
1 Date:
061251201012:51 PM
I
I
Greetings,
application and the new NOAA model produces different numbers and graphics than the Coast Guard has
I
I
in hand (my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong) .
https:/lmy-beta.usgs.gov!oilBUdget/
I
I
! - Added a first cut at the barrel graph

- Added annotations as clickable links behind summary table items and as endnotes in the printed PDF
edits.
line graphs on the. same scale, etc.).
Thank you.
<. ({ ----<. (( ----<. {{ {<<<

Sky Bristol
2of3
9/27/20102:07 PM
Re: Corrununicating new new Oil Budget model
009420
sbristol@usqs.qov
<.
3 of3
----<. ----<.
9/27/20102:07 PM
FW: Oil Budget Tool is ready
009421
Subject: FW: Oil Budget Tool is ready

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:15:12 -0700
To: "Hoffman, Peter CDR" <Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>, "O'Brien, Sean LCDR"
<Sean.OBrien@uscg.mil>
CC: "McElroy, Amy Lr' <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOM
<Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>, mgarcia@usgs.gov
CDR Hoffman/LCDR O'Brien:
We will defer to your judgment on this matter, with the recommendation that you
have a NOAA and a CG-533 rep on the list, such as LT Amy McElroy and NOAA Rep
Mark Miller.
-----Origina1 Message----From: mgarcia@usgs.gov [mailto:mgarcia@usgs.gov]

To: Hoffman, Peter CDR; sean.k.o'brien@uscg.gov
Cc: Grawe, William; Brown, Baron CDR
Subject: Oil Budget Tool is ready
Great news, the oil budget tool is ready for use. What I need from you is:
1) Names and emails of Coast Guard personnel for access credentials
2) Preferences from Coast Guard on orienting new users if they need help
I can arrange to get some USGS folks online to help walk CG staff through
the tool if needed. Looking forward to getting the tool in use.
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
1 of 1
9/27/20102:07 PM
009422

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:19:09 -0600
cc: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, Kevin T
Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller
Okay. This is what we will plan on for a timeline:
- Development team will release version 1.0 to production servers today so that we are
prepared for anything and we've met our basic deadline.
- Bill Lehr and the science team continue work toward a new version of the calculations.
- Martha Garcia, Mark Sogge, Mark Miller, and others if necessary will all have access to the
application to discuss with NIC staff and others on an ad hoc basis.
- Same individuals (along with LT Charity Drew) all have access to update daily variables as
they're available to you all.
- Once we receive any changes to the model, we'll incorporate them into the application and
test.
- After we have the new model in place, we can schedule time to turn this over for
operational use.
If you are okay with it, we'll look to that last piece to be Monday, June 28, at the earliest. I
have plans I can't disrupt for the weekend, and we're not operating on a 7-day schedule.
We can usually cover where necessary, but it doesn't sound like we are directly "under the
gun" with this at the moment.
<.----<.(<----<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
(<
I! -------------------------I
Sounds like a good plan. No problem with the CG, they want it right. So let's take the time we need
I, Senior Advisor for Biology

I 301
National Center
Reston, VA 20192
I mgarcia@usgs.gov
!
I
From: SKY Bristol [sbristol@usgs.gov]

Sent: 06/25/2010 12:03 PM CST
Ion
9/2712010 2:07 PM
009423
!
i
To: Mark S09ge

II
Ii I tend to agree, although Bill hasn't said the model is wrong; just in need of some
! adjustments.
I
I
It is outside my purview to make that call, but totally up to you all. I

would just ask that someone communicate that to CDR Hoffman/CDR O'Brien and any
other NIC personnel so that they understand the current situation and adjustments to
the timeline.
We can go ahead with technically getting this application to where it needs to be and
I wait on the science advisory determination on when we open it up for Coast

I Guard/NIC use.
II <.----<.----<.(<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Ii
<.(<----<.(<----<.(<
On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Mark K 8099e wrote:
I
! Hi Sky,
\
! Am backed up with things, so can't give this a lot of attention today. However, my sense is that Bill
Lehr is still trying to get feedback on what appear to be oddities in the data pattern. Perhaps I am
working off outdated knowledge. But if Bill/NOAA does not have full confidence in the calculations
yet, I think it is premature to release.
1
I
,
!I
II I-I!
Martha - you may have more current knowledge or a different opinion... I welcome your input here.
I
1
I
!
I
!
I
I
Mark
Mark Sogge
Deputy Chair, Nrc Flow Rate Technical Group
II
I
i!
mark sogge@usgs.gov
I
!

Iv'Iark K Sogge .lv'IarkMller<mark,w.miller@noaa.gov>,lv'Iartha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, David Iv'Iack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Tim Kem <kemt@usgs.gov>
Cc:
06/25/201012:51 PM
Date:
From:
To:
I
2of3
I
I
9/27/20102:07 PM
009424
Greetings,
We are just about ready to go live with the first iteration of the Web tool for the Oil Budget.
We need your help and perhaps that of other "science advisors" on the Deepwater Horizon incident
response. This application and the new NOAA mOdel produces different numbers and graphics than
the Coast Guard has grown accustomed to with LT Charity Drew's spreadsheet. The model is also
still slightly in flux with Bill Lehr's team reviewing the actual data and output now, and they
may introduce changes in coming days. We and Bill have validated all current calculations and
formulas in the current model for consistency with their latest document.
I'm not sure who all is responsible for this aspect of things, but I trust that you all have
this well in hand (my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong) .
https:llmy-beta.usgs.gov/oilBudget/
Martha and Mark Sogge login with USGS credentials, and Mark Miller should have received an email
from myusgs@uscs.gov with a password to use with your email address.
-- Will be changing the layout to provide both graphs with tabs in the web'interface
iteration. This is an "expensive" graphic from a computer processor standpOint, and we are
working on an optimization scheme so that every day will show this graphic.
- Added annotations as clickable links behind summary table items and as endnotes in the printed
PDF output. These come partially from Bill Lehr's latest document, but we could use a review on
the content. I can show you how to edit that directly as managers if you want, or you can send
me the edits.
- Added an Excel spreadsheet output option that dumps out all current data and the entire
calculation model into a fully workable form. This is a "flattened" and somewhat non-optimized
form of the entire oil budget model, but it is fully workable and offers options for custom
graphing and other features. This is what we provided to Bill Lehr and his team for review.
I think we've also taken care of all the "little things" people requested at different times
(e.g., line graphs on the same scale, etc.).
address later today, and we will let you know. At that time, the beta address will shift to
taking on new features for testing that will be released incrementally to production.
Thank you.
<. (( ----<. (( ----<.

Sky Bristol
<. ((
30f3
--<.
9/27/20102:07 PM
RE: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3542-3544
009425
Subject: RE: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3542-3544

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:36:40 -0400
To: NIC-RFI-1 <NIC-RFI-1@uscg.mil>
cc:
HQS-DG-LST-NIC~HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP <NIC-HQ-
IASG@uscg.mil>
Good Afternoon,
This request has been forwarded to the appropriate agencies for review; however
an answer will not be available by 1500 today.
Very Respectfully,
Amy McElroy, LT
-----Original Message----From: NIC-RFI-l
Cc: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit
Subject: FW:FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3542-3544
Importance: High
Good Afternoon,
vir,
LT Christine Kimak
Situation Unit
-----Original Message----From: Jones/ Melinda

Sent: Friday, June 25/ 2010 1:34 PM
To: Jones, Melinda; HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit: HQS-DG-LST-CG DCO-Incident
Support Team: Offutt, Todd CDRi Moland, Mark CDR; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott CDRi Mackenzie,
Nathan LTi Mason, Roberti McLaughlin, Daniel CDRi Morrison, Stephanie LCDRi
Warren, Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn CDR: St.
John, Jordan; Wright, Howard CDR; Derian, Matthew LT; Lauzon, Michelle CTR; Naff,
Beth LCDRi Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPT; Didominicus, Lou; Ret Joseph
CAPTi Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Goad, Michaeli Reese, Tamekia: Smith, BeverlYi
Venckus, Stevei Carpenter, Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger; Amidon, Dale;
Armstrong, Richard LT; Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin LTi Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn,
Patrick CAPTi Hallock, Johnene LTi Harker, Thomas CDR; Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR;
Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR; Keffer, Benjamin LT; Lomba, Manuel LCDRi
Mohr, Kevin CDR: Petty, Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson, Robert CAPT;
Warney, Maple; Yacobi, Jamesi Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-lst-CG-821: HQS-DGIst-CG-822i Coe, Shannah CTR; Cunningham, Matthew CTRi Ladd, Pamelai Manzi,
Kathryn; Martyn, David CTRi McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William CTRi Smith,
Derek LCDRi hqs-dg-lst-dcms-82; Medina, Lizette'; Montgomery, Patrick LT;
Thompson, Matthew LCDR; Grawe, William; Guinee, Paul; Thurber, Margaret; Thuring,
AlIeni Camp, Claudia CDR; Thomas, Feba
lof4
9/27/20102:07 PM
009426

Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
quali
the following claims made by a Russian academic in below article.
-----Original Message----From: Jones, Melinda [mailto:Melinda,E,Jones@uscg.dhs.gov]
To: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit; HQS-DG-LST-CG DCa-Incident Support Team;
Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Jones, Melinda; Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT: Langum, Scott CDR:
LCDR; Warren, Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn
CTR: Naff, Beth LCDR; Palermo, Andrea CDR: Parker, Frank CAPT; Didominicus, Lou;
Re,
CAPT; Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Goad, Michael; Reese, Tamekia; Smith,
Beverly; Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger;
Amidon, Dale; Armstrong, Richard LT; Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta,
Carlos; Flynn, Patrick CAPT; Hallock, Johnene LT; Harker, Thomas CDR; Hellberg,
Jonathan LCDR; Hudson, Samuel LT: Imahori, John CDR; Keffer, Benjamin LT; Lomba,
Manuel LCDR; Mohr, Kevin CDR;
Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson,
Robert CAPT; Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-lst-CG-821;
HQS-DG-lst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR; Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela;
Smith, Derek LCDR; hgs-dg-lst-dcms-82; Medina, Lizette; Montgomery, Patrick LT;
Allen: Camp, Claudia CDR; Thomas, Feba
Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
Jason Yanussi of Senator Lieberman's staff has requested a responses to the below
questions.
timeline shows the Polar Star reactivation complete during the last guarter of CY
2011.
If the reguested deadline cannot be met; please provide the reason and your
ASSIGNMENTS:
(NIC-HQ) Q&A '3542: The Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured "beyond all
American television, but from at least 18 other sites on the "fractured
20f4
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
RE: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC~HQ):
Q&A#3542~3544
009427

Database Access: <file:III\\hgs-nas-t-001\CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearinqs\Da tabase
\QIndex.2010.xlsm>
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
U. S. Coast Guard
.mil
BACKGROUND
"BP.A dire report circulating in the Kremlin today that was prepared forPrime
Minister Putin by Anatoly Sagalevich of Russia's ShirshovInstitute of Oceanology
comprehension" unless "extraordinarymeasures" are undertaken to stop the massive
flow of oil into ourPlanet's eleventh
body of water.Most important to
by British oil giant BPshortly after the April 22nd sinking of the Deepwater
Horizon oilplatform.BP's calling on Sagalevich after this catastrophe began is
due to hisbeing the holder of the World's record for the deepest freshwater
diveand his expertise with Russia's two
Submergence Vehicles MIR 1 andMIR 2
[photo below] which are able to take their crews to the depth of6,OOO meters
of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown
Sagalevich stating that he and theother Russian scientists were required by the
legallyoperate in US territorial waters.However, Sagalevich says that he and the
officials about what theywere seeing on the sea floor, including the US Senator
from their Stateof Florida Bill Nelson who after one such briefing stated to the
MSNBCnews service "Andrea we're looking into something new right now,
wouldindicate, if that's true, that the well casing itself is actuallypierced ...
what we're facing."Though not directly stated in Sagalevich's report, Russian
scientists findings on the true state of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are
Mexico. On CNBC's Fast Money, he sayshe'd be surprised if BP lasted this summer,
saying this is disaster isentirely BP's fault."As a prominent oil-industry
and probably ruiningthe Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well. "Obama's government,
30f4
9/27/20102:07 PM
009428
American experts advocating such anextreme measure before all' is lost, and as we
attempt that failed} ,which have been documented in a U.. S. Department of Energy
report on theU.S.S.R.'s peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.Russia is now
urging the United States to consider doing the same.Komsomoloskaya Pravda,
the
gamble the Americans couldcertainly risk.nReportedly,
special nuclear devices explicitlyfor closing blown-out gas wells, theorizing
have demolished thiswell with explosives over a month ago. And
we watch in
excruciating suspense while BP fumbles through plan after plan to recover its oil
andcover its asset.nAs to the reason for Obama's government refusing to consider
nuking thisoil well, Sagalevich states in this
that the American's
"mainconcern" is not the environmental catastrophe this disaster is causing, but
the continued production of oil from the Gulf of Mexico, and which in an energy
its production."
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2257332/?wpisrc=newsletter
40f4
9/27/20102:07 PM
009429

From: NIC-RFI-2 <NIC-RFI-2@uscg.mil>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:36:50 -0400
To: "McElroy. Amy L1'" <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, NIC-RFI-1 <NIC-RFI-1@uscg.mil>
CC: HQS-DG-LST-N IC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP <N IC-HQIASG@uscg.mil>
AmyDeadline has been extended to Tuesday AM.
vir
LT Lauren Trocchio
Situation Unit - RFI Desk
-----Original
From: McElroy, Amy LT
Sent: Friday~ June 25, 2010 2:37 PM
To: NIC-RFI-1
Cc: HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP
Good
This request has been forwarded to the appropriate agencies for review; however
an answer will not be available by 1500 today.
Very Respectfully,
Amy McElroy, LT
NIC-----Original
From: NIC-RFI-1
Subject: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ); Q&A#3542-3544
Importance: High
Good Afternoon,
vir,
LT Christine Kimak
Situation Unit
-----Origina1 Message----From: Jones, Melinda

lof4
9/27/20102:07 PM
009430
Support Team; Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott CDR; Mackenzie,
Nathan LT; Mason, Robert; McLaughlin, Daniel CDR; Morrison, Stephanie LCDR;
Warren, Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele: Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn CDR; St.
Beth LCDR; Palermo, Andrea CDR: Parker, Frank CAPT; Didominicus, Lou; Re, Joseph
CAPT; Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Goad, Michael; Reese, Tamekia; Smith, Beverly;
Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger; Amidon, Dale;
Armstrong l Richard LT; Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn,
Patrick CAPT; Hallock, Johnene LT; Harker, Thomas CDR; Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR;
Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR; Keffer, Benjamin LT; Lomba, Manuel LCDR;
Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDR: Thompson, Robert CAPT:
Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-lst-CG-821; HQS-DGlst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR; Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela: Manzi,
Kathryn; Martyn, David CTR; McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William CTR; Smith,
Derek LCDRi hqs-dg-Ist-dcms-82; Medina, Lizette; Montgomery, Patrick LT;
Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
-----Original Message----From: Jones, Melinda [mailto:Melinda.E.Jones@uscg.dhs.gov]
Cc: Jones, Melinda; Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott CDR;
LCDR; Warren, Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn
CTR; Naff, Beth LCDR; Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPT; Didominicus, Lou;
Re, Joseph CAPT; Bouziane, Michele LCDR: Goad, Michael: Reese, Tamekia; Smith,
Beverly; Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sandra: Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger;
Amidon, Dale; Armstrong, Richard LT; Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta,
Carlos; Flynn, Patrick CAPT; Hallock, Johnene LT; Harker, Thomas CDR; Hellberg,
Jonathan LCDR; Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR: Keffer, Benjamin LT; Lomba,
Manuel LCDR; Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson,
Robert CAPT; Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-lst-CG-821;
HQS-DG-Ist-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR; Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela;
Smith, Derek LCDRi hqs-dg-lst-dcms-82: Medina, Lizette; Montgomery, Patrick LT;
Allen; Camp, Claudia CDR; Thomas l Feba
Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
questions.
2011.
2of4
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009431

If the requested deadline cannot be met;
provide the reason and your
estimated ETA.
ASSIGNMENTS:
The Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured "beyond all
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3542:
repair" and our World should
preparing for an ecological disaster "beyond
American television,
but from at least 18 other sites on the "fractured
seafloor" with the largest being
11 kilometers (7 miles) from where the
Access: <file:III\\hgs-nas-t-OOl\CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearings\Database
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
U. S. Coast Guard
BACKGROUND
"BP.A dire report circulating in the Kremlin today that was prepared forPrime
Minister Putin by Anatoly Sagalevich of Russia's Shirshovlnstitute of Oceanology
comprehension" unless " ex traordinarymeasures" are undertaken to stop the massive
by British oil giant BPshortly after the April 22nd sinking of the Deepwater
dive and his expertise with Russia's two Deep Submergence Vehicles MIR 1 andMIR 2
(19,685 ft) . According to Sagalevich's report, the 011 leaking into the Gulf
ofMexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown
officials about what theywere seeing on the sea 'floor, including the US Senator
30f4
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
009432
wouldindicate, if that's true, that the well casing itself is actuallypierced ...
what we're facing."Though not directly stated in Sagalevich's report, Russian
scientistsfindings on the true state of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are
Mexico. On CNBC's Fast Money, he sayshe'd be
if BP lasted this summer,
saying this is disaster isentirely BP's fault.nAs a prominent oil-industry
and probably ruining the Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well. "Obama's government,
can read as reported byBritain's Telegraph News Service:nThe former Soviet Union
attempt that failed),which have been documented in a U.. S. Department of Energy
on theU.S.S.R. 's peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.Russia is now
the United States to consider doing the same.Komsomoloskaya Pravda,
the
gamble the Americans couldcertainly risk. "Reportedly,
meters, dependingon the device's power. Much as I had
imagined, massive
explosionscan be employed to collapse a runaway well on
thus plugging,
orat least substantially
the flow of oil .... Seafloor nuclear
"ma inconcern" is not the environmental catastrophe this disaster is causing, but
the continued production of oil from the Gulf of Mexico,and which in an energy
its production."
4of4
9/27/20102:07 PM
Re: Review of Endnotes for Oil Budget application
009433
Subject: Re: Review of Endnotes for Oil Budget application

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:01 :22 -0700
CC: Bill Lehr <BiII,Lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Mifler - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Martha Garcia
<mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Hi Sky,
I have a few comments (attached) on the endnotes. The key comments involve how to explain the use of different flow rates
pre- and post-riser cut. Let me know if any questions.
Mark
Mark Sogge
Deputy Chair. NIC Flow Rate Technical Group
2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, f:\Z 86001
mark_sogge@usgs.gov
From:
To:
Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Martha Garcia cmgarcia@usgs.gov>. Mark Miler - NOAA <markw.miller@noaa.gov>. Bin Lehr
cBiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date:
06/241201002:16 PM
Subject: Review of Endnotes for Oil Budget application
Sorry to keep bugging you all with so many things, but there are always quite a few details to work through in getting an
application like this out the door. I've attached a Word document containing the annotations we are putting together in
the application. Users in the Web
will click to bring these up from the executive summary, and the print
reports (beta example attached)
reference them as end notes.
You'll see in the comments for the first annotation that there are a couple of distinct sections, part of which will show
the current dynamic values/factors that go into the calculation. If one or more folks could give this a read and suggest
any changes, that would be very helpful. I tried to mostly use text from the Mass Balance Formulas document with a little
bit of modification geared toward the Coast Guard user audience.
Thank you very much. I know you are all very busy, and ! appreciate any time you have to help.
{attachment "Documentation for Oil Budget Too1.docx" deleted by Mark. K Sogge/OO/USGS!DOIJ [attachment
"DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20l00620.pdf" deleted by Mark !( Sogge/DO/USGS/OOIJ
P.S. Don't worry about the funky negative values in the example report for the Low Flow Rate scenario. That is part of
the problem we are working to resolve somewhere in the calculations or how the model plays out.
<. ----<. (<----<.

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. ( ( ----<.
----<. (
Content-Type:
application/ms-word
E
d
b e64
OilBudgetApplication-ProjectOverview - MKS edits.doc C
ontent- nco mg: as
lof2
9/27/2010 2:07 PM
20f2
009434
9/27/20 10 2:07 PM
009435
_USGS
Oil Budget Cumulative and Daily Reporting Application - project overview

This project came about as the result of U.S. Geological Survey involvement in the National
Incident Command Center for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. The U.S. Coast
Guard builds and maintains a daily oil budget report that indicates the daily values and
cumulative total of oil in the Gulf based on estimates of discharge rates and the results of
natural processes and mitigation actions. The Coast Guard has requested assistance in two
areas:
1. Scientific review of the numerical figures being used and assumptions on natural
processes (subsurface and surface natural dispersal, evaporation) and mitigation
actions (skimming, burning, chemical dispersants). NOAA will lead this task.
2. Technical assistance with the modeling and reporting application (originally in
spreadsheet form). USGS will lead this effort.
This document provides an initial basis for the project that will encompass the elements
envisioned in the following diagram.
Data and the oil
budget model
Periodic update by
Review by USGS-led
authorized personnel science team
Comment [MKS1]:Please change the h~dlng

; for the far rtgbtcOlull1 n to read 'A$$lIl11pdon;md
, factor nnrlt'Wi by NOAA '
Alternatively. we c.ould leave that off the cllIIgl'IIm.
but I think it Is usef,,1 to $how II.
Data inputs rates.

estimates.
assumptions. and
supporting figures
data inputs.
calculations. and
assumptions
'011 Budget
Model"
Calculation
based on Oil
Budget Formula
Technical Support (Single, secure Web application)
Scientific Support
Figure 1. This figure provides a conceptual flow chart of user actions and data to be
incorporated into the Web application provided to input daily data, manage underlying
data and parameters of the application, and output reports (cumulative summary, daily
totals, and graphs). It also indicates the NOAAled scientific review of the model going on
concurrently with application development
009436
Technical Project Plan and Timeline Estimates
Project Activity
Spreadsheet improvements
Dynamic and complete graphing
Output of daily values (if
possiblel
First iteration Web application delivered
to Coast Guard test group
Web aQPlication placed into production
Formulas and calculations in the Oil
Budget Model updates based on
scientific review bv NOAA
Ongoing support and adjustments to the
Web application
Delivery Dates
June 17-19
June 23 (pending)
June 28 (pending)
ASAP
Through end of incident
Feature Overview
The following provide a high-level list of major features of the Oil Budget Cumulative and
Daily Reporting Application:
Encryption and security provided through established USGS Web infrastructure

(myUSGS)
o Authentication and role membership support for Coast Guard personnel
from incident command or appropriate data management and reporting
entity
Separate Web forms and access roles for daily data entry/reporting and background
data management of discharge figures, estimates, and other supporting data and
configuration parameters
Web browser view and print reports for cumulative executive summary with graphs
and daily totals for the duration of the incident
Full transactional logging of all data entry, modifications, and reporting showing
users conducting transactions for the duration of the incident (full reports from
transactional logs available as necessary)
Flexible formula engine used to enable adjustment of calculations and assumptions
based on NOAA or other scientific review
Core Contacts
Sky Bristol
USGS Project Lead
Kevin Gallagher
USGS Project Sponsor
CDR Peter Hoffman
USCG NIC Situation Unit

Supervisor
009437
009438
Re: [Fwd: ACTION needed by COB Monday ~ DWH Brieffor Mexico]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: ACTION needed by COB Monday - DWH Brief for Mexico]
From: Neal Parry <NeaI.Parry@noaa.gov>

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:12:48 -0400
CC: Micah Wengren <Micah.Wengren@noaa.gov>, Sherry Lippiatt
<Sherry.Lippiatt@noaa.gov>, Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner
<William. Conner@noaa.gov>
Mark,
ASAP on Monday morning we need to return the document to Brendan Bray.
very much,
Thanks
Neal
USGS is just finishing up an Oil Budget tool for CG which will be able to
"answer" those questions. Of course the "answers" are more guess than answer. I
will ask our USGS rep to gin something up. Do we have a schedule for the brief
or a due date for the document?
i
i
I
I
I
mark
I Micah
t
!II
Wengren wrote:
Mark,
the nUmb~rs from the daily briefing report as well as
that conta~ns all the relevant info.
The only question
we couldn't answer was the flow
Neal and I
I the NGA
!I
pu~led
graph~c
1i
IIi i
!
The only question we weren't able to answer was the last one on total
oil volume since we aren't sure what estimate numbers to use. Any
advice?
These seem to be old estimate numbers.
iJj I Thanks,
!I Micah
10ft
9/27/20102:08 PM
FW; FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ); Q&A#3542-3544
009439
Subject: FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3542-3544

From: "Kunkel, Kevin" <Kevin.Kunkel@mms.gov>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:12:49 -0400
To: Mark Miller - NOM <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
From: Cushing, John

To: Herdt, Lyn; Thornhill, Alan D; King, Staei; Haenny, Lesley; Malcomb, Drew
Cc: Moore, David M.; Kunkel, Kevin
One thing in that original report that does appear to be true is that the Soviets have used nuclear explosions in the past to stop
blow-outs. Here an interest video about that. ..
http://shock.militarv.comfShocklvideos.do?displavContent=216371&page=1
From: Herdt, Lyn

To: Thornhill, Alan D; King, Staci; Haenny, Lesley; Malcomb, Drew
Cc: Moore, David M.; Cushing, John; Kunkel, Kevin
I have added Drew Malcomb to this email.
Lyn Herdt, Chief
Office of Congressional Affairs
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement
From: Thornhill, Alan D

To: Thornhill, Alan D; Herdt, Lyn; King, Staei; Haenny, Lesley
This seems to be making the internet rounds ...
http://www. mediaite .comftv/oil-industry-experts-believe-piugginq-the-gulf-oil-welI-could-hurt-more-than-helpl
and others are looking at videos coming to the same conclusion ...
http://blog.alexanderhiggins. comf201 0/06/13/bp-gulf-oil-spill-seafloor-oil-gas-Ieak-videos-photosl
According to a National Academy's report (http://www.nap.edulopenbook.php?recordJd=10388), each year, globally. there
are something like 180 million gallons of oil that are seeped through natural cracks in the sea floor. I think the number is
something like 47 million gallons for North America alone (most of that in the Gulf). Oil escape rates from seeps can change
pretty dramatically over time.
A
Dr. ,\lan D. Thornhill
Science :\t.Ivi~or to the Director
Bm(.'au of Ocean En(''I'gy M~l!1a~mlCm Regulation & F,nforc(.mcnt
Dcr~rt:lncm of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W'., 1\-1,.'> 5438
Wa~hington. DC 202400002
of5
9/27/20102:08 PM
009440
202-208-6249 voice
202-208-72-f:! fax
alan.thomhill@mms.gov
From: Thornhill, Alan D

To: Herdt, Lyn; King, Staci; Haenny, Lesley
Cc: Moore, David M.; Cushing, Johni Kunkel, Kevin
Hi allThere is an on-going blog event about a very similar story-might be independent, but sounds too similar to dismiss...
It might be that the "dire report circulating in the Kremlin today that was prepared for Prime Minister Putin by Anatoly
Sagalevich of Russia's Shirshov Institute of Oceanology" is a mash-up of the blog story below. Apparently Keith Olberman has
also picked up on this blog story as authoritative so it might not be limited to the Kremlin.
On this site, http://www.theoildrum.comla user, DougR, posted a story on 13 June about cracks in the sub-floor of the Gulf.
See here to read the original post: http://www.theoildrum.comlnode/6593f648967 . It has a conspiracy theory feel to it.
After much deliberation, the consensus of the website dialog is that DougR's reservoir-draining scenario is wrong, and that
bottom kill will work. This morning one of the editors posted a summary rebuttal, after mainstream media such as Keith'
Olberman started promulgating the worst-case scenario that DougR was telling as authoritative. That rebuttal is the front page
of the website blog now: http://www.theoildrum.comlnode/6655#more
Hope this helps!
AT
Dr.. \ Ian
n Thornhill
Scil'nCt: i\dvisor to rhe Director

Bureau of Oct:an Energy Managtmem RCf"ulation & ":ntofCt'tT1em
D"partmt:nt of the Int<.'riof

1849 C Srrwt, N.W., l\IS 5438
\X:,l$hington, DC 20240-0002
.gov
From: Herdtr Lyn

To: King, Staci; Haenny, Lesley; Thornhill, Alan D
Subject: RE: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC':'HQ): Q&A#3542-3544
Alan Thornhill has been following on line what he believes may be related to this. He will respond directly to all of you after
receipt of this email.
Lyn Herdt, Chief
Office of Congressional Affairs
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement
From: King, Staci

To: Herdt, Lyni Haenny, Lesley
20f5
9/27/20102:08 PM
009441
Lyn/Lesley - have you seen these questions before and how should we proceed? Please see the 3
items below ... USCG sent Lieberman's staff questions to National Incident Command Interagency
Solutions Group (IASG) for assistance. If we chose not to respond, is it appropriate to provide
"assignment received, no further response anticipated"? Thanks, Staci
----------
From US Coast Guard HQ:

"Jason Yanussi of Senator Lieberman's staff is requesting that the Coast Guard qualify the
following claims made by a Russian academic in below article."
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3542: The Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured "beyond all repair" and
our World should begin preparing for an ecological disaster "beyond comprehension" unless
"extraordinary measures are undertaken.
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3543: According to Sagalevich's report, the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico is
not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown on American television, but from at
least 18 other sites on the "fractured seafloor" with the largest being nearly 11 kilometers (7
miles) from where the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these precious waters an
estimated 2 million gallons of oil a day.
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3544: As a prominent oil-industry insider, and one of the World's leading
experts on peak oil, Simmons further warns that the US has only two options, "let the well run
dry (taking 30 years, and probably ruining the Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well.
PS - Kunkel is our rep at the NIC-IASG; Moore is TDY to Pensacola this weekend; I called John
Cushing to share the head's up ...
ll
-----Original Message----From: Kunkel, Kevin

Sent: Friday, June 25,20102:23 PM
To: Moore, David M.
Cc: King, Staci
Importance: High
Just received this flash action. They are wanting a response by 3PM. It's got everyone here all worked up. How do you suggest I proceed?
-Moo-Original Message----From: NIC-RFI-l@uscg.mil [mailto:NIC-RFI- I@uscg,mil}
To: HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUfIONS-GROUP
Subject: FW; FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3542-3544
Importance: High
Good Afternoon,
RFI below requests confirmation on the Russian article (broken out into 3 Q's below). We are hoping the IASG will be able to answer.
vir,
LT Christine Kimak
Situation Unit

To: Jones, Melinda; HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit; HQS-DG-LST-CG DCO-Incident Support Team; Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland,
Mark CDR; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott CDR; Mackenzie, Nathan LT; Mason, Robert; Mclaughlin, Daniel CDR;
Morrison, Stephanie LCDR; Warren, Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn CDR; Sl John, Jordan; Wright,
Howard CDR; Derian, Matthew LT; Lauzon, Michelle CTR; Naif, Beth LCDR; Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPT; Didominicus,
LoU; Re, Joseph CAPT; Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Goad, Michael; Reese, Tarnelcia; Smith, Beverly; Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sandra;
Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger; Amidon, Dale; Armstrong, Richard LT; Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn, Patrick
CAPT; Hallock, Johnene LT; Harker, Thomas CDR; Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR; Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR; Keffer, Benjamin
LT; Lomba, Manuel LCDR; Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson, Robert CAPT; Warney, Maple; Yacobi,
3 of 5
9/27/20102:08 PM
FW: FOR FLASH ACTION (NlC-HQ): Q&A#3542-3544
009442
James; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-lst-CG-82I ; HQS-DG-lst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR; Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela;
Manzi, Kathryn; Martyn., David CTR; McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William CTR; Smith, Derek LCDR; hqs-dg-lst-dcms-82; Medina,
Lizette; Montgomery, Patrick LT; Thompson, Matthew LCDR; Grawe, William; Guinee, Paul; Thurber, Margaret; Thuring, Allen; Camp,
Claudia CDR; Thomas, Feba
.
Importance: High
SirslMa'am,
Jason Yanussi of Senator Lieberman's staffis requesting that the Coast Guard quality the following claims made by a Russian academic in
below article.
-----Original Message----From: Jones, Melinda [rnailto:Melinda.EJones@uscg.dhs.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 I :08 PM
To: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit; HQS-DG-LST-CG DCO-Incident Support Team; Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Watson,
Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Jones, Melinda; Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott CDR; Mackenzie, Nathan LT; Mason, Robert; Mclaughlin,
Daniel CDR; Morrison, Stephanie LCDR; Warren, Robert CDR; Zauclle, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn CDR; St John,
Jordan; Wright, Howard CDR; Derian, Matthew LT; Lauzon, Michelle CTR; Naif, Beth LCDR; Palenno, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank
CAPT; Didominicus, Lou; Re, Joseph CAPT; Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Goad, Michael; Reese, Tamekia; Smith, Beverly; Venckus, Steve;
Carpenter, Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger; Amidon, Dale; Armstrong, Richard LT; BroOleII, Robert; Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta,
Carlos; Flynn, Patrick CAPT; Hallock, Johnene LT; Harker, Thomas CDR; Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR; Hudson, Samuel LT; Irnahori, John
CDR; Keffer, Benjamin LT; Lomba, Manuel LCDR; Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson, Robert CAPT;
Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-lst-CG-82I; HQS-DG-lst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR; Cunningham, Matthew
CTR; Ladd, Pamela; Manzi, Kathryn; Martyn., David CTR; McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William CTR; Smith, Derek LCDR; hqs-dgIst-dcms-82; Medina., Lizette; Montgomery, Patrick LT; Thompson, Matthew LCDR; Grawe, William; Guinee, Paul; Thurber, Margaret;
Thuring, Allen; Camp, Claudia CDR; Thomas, Feba
Importance: High
SirsIMa'am,
Jason Yanussi of Senator Lieberman's staffhas requested a responses to the below questions.
Background: Following the notification that the POLAR SEA will not be available until at least January 2011, Mr. Chuck Banks
(Murkowski) was reviewing the tiOleline that the CG provided in on Dec 12,2009 (Q 2144 attached for reference) which states that the
POLAR STAR will be ready for operations in Dec 2010. In a briefing to Senate staff on Jan 6,2009, (ppt attached for reference) the
timeline shows the Polar Star reactivation complete during the last quarter ofCY 2011.
If the requested deadline cannot be met; please provide the reason and your estimated ETA. This will allow us to manage expectations.
ASSIGNMENTS:
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3542: The Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured "beyond all repair" and our World should begin preparing for an
ecological disaster "beyond comprehension" unless "extraordinary measures" are undertaken
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3543: According to Sagalevich's report, the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well
bore site being shown on American television, but from at least 18 other sites on the "fractured seafloor" with the largest being nearly 11
kilometers (7 miles) from where the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these precious waters an estimated 2 million gallons of
oil a day.
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3544: As a prominent oil-industry insider, and one of the World's leading experts on peak oil, Simmons further wams
that the US has only two options, "let the well run dry (taking 30 years, and probably ruining the Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well.
Database Access: <fi le:1/ I\\hqs-nas-t-OO I \CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearings\Database\OIndex.20 10 .xlsm>
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
U. S. Coast Guard
mil
4of5
9/27/20102:08 PM
009443
BACKGROUND
"BP.A dire report circulating in the Kreml in today that was prepared forPrime Minister Putin by Anatoly Sagalevich of Russia's
ShirshovInstitute of Oceanology warns that the Gulf of Mexico sea floor has'beenfi'actured "beyond all repair" and our World should begin
preparing foran ecological disaster "beyond comprehension" unless "extraordinarymeasures" are tmdertaken to stop the massive flow of oil
into ourPlanet's eleventh largest body of water. Most important to note about Sagalevich's warning is that he and hisfellow scientists from
the Russian Academy of Sciences are the onlyhuman beings to have actually been to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak site after their being cal led
to the disaster scene by British oil giant BPshortly after the April 22nd sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oilplatform.BP's calling on
Sagalevich after this catastrophe began is due to hisbeing the holder of the World's record for the deepest freshwater diveand his expertise
with Russia's two Deep Submergence Vehicles MIR 1 andMIR 2 [photo below] which are able to take their crews to the depth offi,OOO
meters (19,685 ft).According to Sagalevich's report, the oil leaking into the Gulf otMexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore
site being shown onAmerican television, but from at least 18 other sites on the "fracniredseafloor" with the largest being nearly II
kilometres (7 miles) fromwhere the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these preciouswaters an estimated 2 million gallons of oil
a day.Interesting to note in this report is Sagalevich stating that he and theother Russian scientists were required by the United States to
signdocuments forbidding them to report their findings to either theAmerican public or media, and which they had to do in order to
legallyoperate in US territorial waters. However, SagaJevich says that he and the other scientists gave nearlyhourly updates to both US
government and BP officials about what theywere seeing on the sea floor, including the US Senator from their StateofFlorida Bill Nelson
who after one such briefing stated to the MSNBCnews service "Andrea we're looking into something new right now, thatthere's reports of
oil that's seeping up from the seabed ... which wouldindicate, if that's true, that the well casing itself is actuallypierced... tmderneath the
seabed. So, you know, the problems could bejust enonnous with what we're facing. "Though not directly stated in Sagalevich's report,
Russian scientistsfindings on the true state of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are beyonddoubt being leaked to his long-time friend, and
former US PresidentGeorge W. Bush's top energy advisor Matthew Simmons, who US mediareports state has openly said: "Matthew
Simmons is sticking by his storythat there's another giant leak in the Gulf of Mexico blowing massivearnounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
On CNBC's Fast Money, he sayshe'd be surprised ifBP lasted this summer, saying this is disaster isentirely BP's fault."As a prominent
oi I-industry insider, and one of the World's leadingexperts on peak oil, Simmons further warns that the US has only twooptions, "let the
well rtm dry (taking 30 years, and probably ruiningthe Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well."Obama's government, on the other hand, has
stated that a nuclear optionfor ending this catastrophe is not being discussed, but which brings himinto conflict with both Russian and
American experts advocating such anextreme measure before all is lost, and as we can read as reported byBritain's Telegraph News
Service:"The former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) used nuclear weapons on fiveseparate occasions between 1966 and 1981 to successfully cap
blown-outgas and oil surface wells (there was also one attempt that failed),which have been documented in a U..s. Department of Energy
report on theUS.S.R.'s peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.Russia is now urging the United States to consider doing the
same.Kornsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily newspaper, assertsthat although based on Soviet experience there's a
one-in-five chance anuke might not seal the well, it's "a gamble the Americans couldcertainly risk."Reportedly, the U.S.S.R. developed
special nuclear devices explicitlyfor closing blown-out gas wells, theorizing that the blast from anuclear detonation would plug any hole
within 25 to 50 meters, dependingon the device's power. Much as I had idly imagined, massive explosionscan be employed to collapse a
runaway well on itself; thus plugging, orat least substantially stanching, ~ flow of oil.."Seafloor nuclear detonation is starting to sotmd
surprisingly feasibleand appropriate," University of Texas at Austin mechanical engineer Michael E. Webber is quoted observing, while
Columbia Universityvisiting scholar on nuclear policy and former naval officer ChristopherBrownfield wrote in the Daily Beast: "We
should have demol ished thiswell with explosives over a month ago. And yet we watch in excruciatingsuspense while BP fumbles through
plan after plan to recover its oil andcover its asset."As to the reason for Obama's government refusing to consider nuking thisoi I well,
Sagalevich states in this report that the American's "mainconcern" is not the environmental catastrophe this disaster is causing,but rather
what the impact of using a nuclear weapon to stop this leakwould have on the continued production of oil from the Gulf of Mexico, and
which in an energy starved World's remains the Planet's only oilproducing region able to increase its production"
slate.comlidl2257332!?wpisrc=newsletter
5 of5
9/27/2010 2:08 PM
009444
Subject: Re: Review of End notes for Oil Budget application

From: 8ky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:44:06 -0600
To: Mark K 80gge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
CC: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
Thank you. This is a big help.
<.----<.----<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
---<.
On Jun 25, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Mark K 80gge wrote:
Hi Sky,
I have a few comments (attached) on the endnotes. The key comments involve how to explain the use of
different flow rates pre- and post-riser cut. Let me know if any questions.
Mark
Mark Sogge
mark sogge@usgs.gov
From:
Sky Bristol <sbrislol@usgs.gov>
To:
Mark K Sogge , Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark Miler NOAA <mark.w .miller@noaa.gov>, Bill
Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Dale:
061241201002:16 PM
Sorry to keep bugging you all with so many things, but there are always quite a few details to work
through in getting an application like this out the door. I've attached a Word document containing the
annotations we are putting together in the application. Users in the Web application will click to
, bring these up from the executive summary, and the print reports (beta example attached) will reference
them as end notes.
I You'll
see in the comments for the first annotation that there are a couple of distinct sections, part
. of which will show the current dynamic values/factors that go into the calculation. If one or more
. folks could give this a read and suggest any changes, that would be very helpful. I tried to mostly use
I
lof2
Ij
.
9/27/2010 2:08 PM
009445
text from the Mass Balance Formulas document with a little bit of modification geared toward the Coast
Guard user audience.
Thank you very much. I know you are all very busy, and Iappreciate any time you have to help.
[attachment "Documentation for Oil Budget Tool.docx" deleted by Mark K Sogge!DO!USGS!DOIJ [attachment
. "DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100620.pdf" deleted by Mark K Sogge!DO!USGS!DOIJ
II
P.S. Don't worry about the, funky negative values in the example report for the Low Flow Rate scenario.
That is part of the problem we are working to resolve somewhere in the calculations or how the model
plays out.
<. (( ----<. (( ----<. ((
,I
,
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. (----<. ( ((<<<----<. ( ((<<<
20f2
<OilBudgetApplication-ProjectOverview - MKS edits.doc>
9/27/20 IO 2:08 PM
Re: [Fwd: ACTION needed by COB Monday - DWH Brieffor Mexico]

009446
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:47:51 -0400
To: Neal Parry <NeaI.Parry@noaa.gov>
CC: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>
WRT Flow Rate, the most recent current post-riser cut range from FRTG is
35, 000-60, OOObbls/day. This should be reduced to reflect recovery from the Top
Hat system. To day, the best days of recovery are around 20,OOObbls/day, but
within 2 weeks, BP is trying to recover 90% of the gross flow through an upgraded
system that runs on kryptonite.
Neal Parry wrote:
Mark,
iASAP on Monday morning we need to return the document to Brendan Bray.
!very much,
Thanks
!f Neal
i
l Mark.W.Miller
wrote:
is just finishing up an Oil Budget tool for CG which will be able to
Ii I~, "answer" those questions. Of course the "answers" are more guess than answer.
r! I will ask our USGS rep to gin something up. Do we have a schedule for the
j! brief or a due date for the document?
I I USGS
11
11
, mark
!
Micah .Wengren wrote:
! . Mark,'
~
! I . Neal
and I pulled the numbers from the daily briefing report as well as
the NGA graphic that contains all the relevant info. The only question
II' we COUldn't answer was the flow
l!
1
I The
only question we weren't able to answer was the last one on total
I,!
.
advice?
Thanks,
Micah

1 of 1
9/27/20102:08 PM
009447
Subject: Re: Review of Endnotes for Oil Budget application

From: Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:00:48 -0700
CC: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs:gov>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, "Espina, Pedro I." <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Antonio
\"Possolo, Antonio\"" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Dear Mass Balance folks,

Just to let you know,
I have asked to top-notch statistical experts at NI8T to help revise the formulas so that we
correct for the optimistiC case where the spill goes away prematurely. The problem with the
simple approach of just adding the extreme limits is that gives an unrealistic scenario; sort
of like winning the lottery every time you buy a ticket. We should have the revisions to you
shortly.
Bill
On 6/25/10 12:01 PM, Mark K 80gge wrote:
Hi Sky,
I have a few comments (attached) on the endnotes. The key comments involve how to explain the use of
different flow rates pre- and post-riser cut. Let me know if any questions.
Mark
1
Mark Sogge
I
I
mark sogge@usgs.gov
From:
To:

Marl< K Sogge ,lIiIarthaGarcia <mgarCia@usgs.gOV>,MarkMller-NOAA <marl<.w.miller@noaa.gov>,BiII
Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date:
06124/201002:16 PM
i
'
I!
1---------------I
I
Sorry to keep bugging you all with so many things, but there are always quite a few details to work
10f2
9/27/20102:08 PM
009448
through in getting an application like this out the door. I've attached a Word document containing the
annotations we are putting together in the application. Users in the Web application will click to
bring these up from the executive summary, and the print reports (beta example attached) will reference
them as end notes.
You'll see in the comments for the first annotation that there are a couple of distinct sections, part
of which will show the current dynamic values/factors that go into the calculation. If one or more
folks could give this a read and suggest any changes, that would be very helpful. I tried to mostly use
text fr-om the Mass Balance Formulas document with a little bit of modification geared toward the Coast
Guard user audience.
Thank you very much. I know you are all very busy, and I appreciate any time you have to help.
(attachment "Documentation for Oil Budget Tool.docx" deleted by Mark K Sogge!DO!USGS!OOI]
"OeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100620.pdf" deleted by Mark K Sogge!DO!USGS!DOI]
-
[attachment
P.S. Don't worry about the funky negative values in the example report for the Low Flow Rate scenario.
That is part of the problem we are working to resolve somewhere in the calculations or how the model
plays out.
<. ----<. (<----<.

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
I
-I
(<
2of2
9/27/20102:08 PM
009449
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: ACTION needed by COB Monday - DWH Brief...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: ACTION needed by COB Monday - DWH Brief for Mexico]]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:23:34 -0400
To: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>,
Neal Parry <NeaI.Parry@noaa.gov>
I'm assuming I need to respond to
*Extending the flow rate per day over the days since April 20, the
> following volume of oil in the Gulf can be estimated 42 days into this
> incident: *
if so, the estimate flow rate is 3Sk to 60k barrels per day
So both a upper and lower bound would need to be projected.
Let me know if more info is needed.
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov
From: "Mark.W.Miller" [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: 06/25/201004:24 PM AST
To: Martha Garcia; Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>; Neal Parry <NeaI.Parry@noaa.gov>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: ACTION needed by COB Monday - OWH Brief for Mexico]]
Sorry to hit you up for more oil budget numbers but could we get the new numbers at the
very end of this document? An updated version of htis is due fist thing Monday.
Mark
------- Original Message ------Subject:Re: [Fwd: ACTION needed by COB Monday - DWH Brief for Mexico]
Date:Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:34:59 -0400
From:Micah Wengren <Micah.Wengren@noaa.gov>
To:Mark W Miller <"IIIIIIMark W Miller "> <Mark.W.Miller"""@noaa.gov>
CC:Sherry Lippiatt <Sherry.Lippiatt@noaa.gov>, Neal Parry
<Neal. Parry@noaa.gov>
References:<4C24C80C.8030102@noaa.gov>
Mark,
lof5
9/27/2010 2:08 PM
009450
Neal and I pulled the numbers from the daily briefing report as well as
advice?
Thanks,
Micah
On 06/25/2010 11:15 AM, Sherry Lippiatt wrote:

> Hey Mark,
>
> This tasker came to me through Brendan Bray. Nickie Lambert is on
> leave so I think it is up to the NIC to respond. Below I pulled out a
> list of what needs to be updated from the DH-Cuba nonpaper so that
> that Arthur Paterson (IPO) can draft the response to Mexico. Hopefully
> this information already exists, I think NGA produces the oil
> extent/loop current graphic daily?
>
> Let me know if I can help,
> Sherry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
*
*
*Updated Oil extent and loop current graphic**
*
*The following is a synopsis of DEEPWATER HORIZON response efforts:*
Total active response vessels: over 1,680
Overall personnel responding: more than 20,000
Containment boom deployed: more than 1.9 million feet
Sorbent boom deployed: more than 1.5 million feet
Oily water recovered: nearly 13.8 million gallons
Surface dispersant used: more than 755,000 gallons
Subsea dispersant used: nearly 225,000 gallons
In-situ burn: more than 2.8 million gallons
following volume of oil in the Gulf can be estimated 42 days into this
incident:*
> at 12,000 barrels a day there may be 504,000 barrels of oil (or
> 21,168,000 gallons);
>
> at 19,000 barrels a day there may be 798,000 barrels of oil {or
20f5
9/27/2010 2:08 PM
009451
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: ACTION needed by COB Monday - DWH Brief..
> 33,516,000 gallons); and
>
> at 25,000 barrels a day there may be 1,050,000 barrels of oil (or
> 44,100,000 gallons).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

ACTION needed by COB Monday - DWH Brief for Mexico
Date:
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:49:06 -0400
From:
Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>
To:
Arthur Paterson <Arthur.E.Paterson@noaa.gov>
CC:
Glenda Powell <Glenda.Powell@noaa.gov>, Sarah Morison
<Sarah.Morison@noaa.gov>, Sherry Lippiatt <Sherry.Lippiatt@noaa.gov>,
Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Lambert@noaa.gov>, Joe Inslee
<Joe.Inslee@noaa.gov>, David Holst <David.Holst@noaa.gov>
References:
<4C2373CD.8040004@noaa.gov>
<4C237CDC.3060309@noaa.gov> <4C237FFO.70505@noaa.gov>
>
>
>
> Arthur et aI,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
NOAA IA Dr. Turner/Allison Reed have seen all of these attached

documents and in the case of Cuba and Bahamas, drafted part of them.
ORR will have input/updates/changes.
Glenda/Sarah can you work with Nickie Lambert (for ERD) /Sherry
Lippiatt (for NIC)? to update 6/24-6/26 updates to factual items such
as 1) DWH spill volumes and flow rate, 2) loop current and
3)cleared long-term trajectory All of this information is outlined
pretty well in the attached, pre-cleared international papers.
Arthur - Based on your email below I assume someone in IPO (perhaps
Steve or Gonzalo?) will coordinate drafting and submission of the
final version of this Mexico brief / "non-paper" to Dr. Turner's
office *as I am on leave from 3pm today through 6/30.* Please reply
all to this message with a final IPO contact for this specifictasker.
Thanks!
>
> I think this is an easy one for folks as most of the material is
>
>
>
>
>
written, it just a matter of updates. Call me if there something

critical that comes up (my celli is on ResponseLINK) .
Cheers,
--Brendan
>
>
> *BACKGROUND EMAIL CHAIN BELOW>*
>
> Arthur Paterson wrote:
Brendan,
Thanks for timely response.
These are useful to have and I will be
certain that Turner/Reed receive these (and they may have

seen/cleared these already).
Hope ORR will let me know if there is anything in the way of updates
that will be needed.
Enjoy the vacation!
arthur
Brendan Bray wrote:

> Folks,
3 of5
9/27/20102:08 PM
009452
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
40f5
Attached is a document with previously cleared talking points on the

DWH oil spill for the international community. Also attached are
two previously cleared documents for Cuba and the Bahamas that
generally answer many of the same questions asked by Mexico. Some
of this information will need updating, but for the most part
provides the information requested.
My understanding is that the risk to Mexico is relatively low.
I am on leave starting this afternoon through next Wednesday, but
please call me with any specific questions.
--Brendan
Arthur Paterson wrote:
Hello all (Sara - since you came to the Dep Mtg) ,
Here is an incoming request from Turner, asking for NOS to respond
to questions from Mexico on the oil
by Monday COB. Please
send response to James Turner with a cc:Pam Toschik and Allison
Reed and Arthur Paterson) by cob Monday.
Thank you and apology for short notice.
Arthur
Brief for Mexico
Date:
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:19:38 -0400
From:
James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
To:
'martin.medina@noaa.gov' <Martin.Medina@noaa.gov>,
'Jean-Pierre.Ple@noaa.gov' <Jean-Pierre.Ple@noaa.gov>,
'arthur.e.paterson@noaa.gov' <Arthur.E.Paterson@noaa.gov>,
'mark.paese@noaa.gov <Mark.Paese@noaa.gov>1
'chris.beaverson@noaa.gov' <Chris.Beaverson@noaa.gov>,
'ed.gorecki@noaa.gov' <Edward.Gorecki@noaa.gov>,
'Brent.Smith@noaa.gov' <Brent.Smith@noaa.gov>,
'Rebecca.Lent@noaa.gov' <Rebecca.Lent@noaa.gov>,
'clement.lewsey@noaa.gov' <Clement.Lewsey@noaa.gov>,
'Dan.Thompson@noaa.gov' <Dan.Thompson@noaa.gov>,
'Rene.Eppi@noaa.gov' <Rene.Eppi@noaa.gov>
CC:
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov' <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>,
'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov' <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>,
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
'sykessz@state.gov' <sykessz@state.gov>, 'kimeab@state.gov'
<kimeab@state.gov>, 'ColonFA@state.gov' <ColonFA@state.gov>1
'james.turner@noaa.gov' <James.Turner@noaa.gov>,
'Elizabeth.McLanahan@noaa.gov' <Elizabeth.McLanahan@noaa.gov>
As you know, the Embassy of Mexico asked questions on the oil

spill. All the questions pertained to NOAA areas. The State
Department asked NOAA to take the lead in responding.
The LO assignments for the specific questions (sent by previous
email) are as follows:
NOS-the spread of oil
NOS-the areas where the currents may take it (these 2 questions may
be combined into 1 response)
NMFS-the impact on fisheries
9/27/20102:08 PM
009453
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: ACTION needed by COB Monday DWH Brief. ..
All LOs-any preventative or remedial action that can be foreseen

and undertaken or aspect that NOAA may deem relevant
Please prepare responses as assigned and submit to me (cc:Pam
Toschik and Allison Reed) by cob Monday. The format 'will be a text
non-paper that will be passed to Mexico; releaseable charts,
figures, and maps may be used. Please use to the maximum extent
possible previously cleared material.
OlA will seek final clearance and work with State to clari
where/when the briefing will take place. (The briefing will be to
walk Mexico through the non-paper) .
Thank you.
>
>
5 ofS
9/27/20102:08 PM
Loop CWTent 6/25 files attached
009454
Subject: Loop current 6/25 files attached

From: Jill Petersen <Jill. Petersen@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:06:50 -0700
To: orr.d h-loopcu rrent@noaa.gov
. Content-Type:
application/x-zip-compressed
loopcurrent 6 25.zlp C
E
d'
b
64
ontent- nco mg: ase
-loopCurrentStatus_6_25.pdf------------------------
Content-Type:
application/x-pdf
64
LoopCurrentStatus 6 25.pdf C
b
- ontent-Encoding: ase
loopcurrenC6_25.pdf
app Iication/x-pdf
Content-Type:
loopcurrent 6 25.pdf
- Content-Encoding: base64
I of 1
9/27/2010 2:08 PM
009455
TIME: 10:00pm CDT, June 25, 2010

TO: NOAA SSCs
FROM: NOAA Office of Response and Restoration / Emergency Response Division
Seattle, WA 98115
SUBJECT: Deepwater Horizon MC252 incident and the Loop Current
Summary The Loop Current pattern is not currently serving as a major mechanism to
transport oil toward the Florida Straits. The northern section of the Loop Current (Eddy
Franklin), which has been separated from the main Loop Current, still has a small partial
reconnection to the Loop Current. Models indicate that the connection is decreasing and
Eddy Franklin may once again separate from the Loop Current. The small "tail" of oi I,
observed on the Satellite imagery, extending towards Eddy Franklin continues to disperse
as it approaches Eddy Franklin due to winds and currents. The northern extent of Eddy
Franklin is at about 27 28' N (Fast Eddy II report). There are no reports of recoverable
oil in this tail, the Loop Current or in Eddy Franklin. Eddy Franklin could still re~connect
to the main Loop Current over the next few weeks and provide a clearer pathway for
tarballs to move to the Florida Straits.
Observations The visible sheens near the northern edge of Eddy Franklin appear to have
dissipated. Satellite imagery analysis has identified no anomalies in the region for over a
week. However, the Satellite observations now indicate that a small amount of oil (the
"tail") has moved from the main slick toward the Loop Current. A helicopter overflight
Monday with NOAA personnel (Simicek-Beatty) indicated that it was made up of "less
than 1% silver sheen, with some rainbow and dull sheens, and less than 1% orange
emulsified oil and scattered tarballs". A USCG C-130 overflight yesterday flew a
northern track, but did not cover the area south oflatitude 28 degrees. Friday's satellite
imagery shows the ''tail'' of oil to be dispersed and scattered as it approaches Eddy
Franklin. This is probably related to the increase in winds from the E and SE.
The counter-clockwise eddy north of Eddy Franklin has continued to move to the west. It
is likely that this eddy is moving the oil in the "tail" toward Eddy Franklin. This is similar
to a pattern that occurred a couple of weeks ago. We expect that some portion of that oil
will remain in this counter clockwise eddy, while some portion could be drawn into the
main Eddy Franklin. Drifter buoys in the region have moved from Eddy Franklin into
that counter-clockwise eddy.
We expect most of any oil that does get drawn into Eddy Franklin will remain there or be
drawn into the eddy to the north, though some may be drawn into the connection
forming with the Loop Current, and may be moved toward the Florida Straits. Any oil
that does make it as far as the Florida Straits will likely be highly weathered scattered
tarballs.
We do not expect recoverable concentrations of oil to move toward the Loop Current
within the forecast period. The sentinel vessels looking for tarballs in the Florida Current
south of the Dry Tortugas have not reported finding any oil.
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
June 25, 2010
009456
Eddy Franklin may still reconnect with the main Loop Current. However, the models we
are examining show most of the surface expression of the eddy to still be separated, and
the gap between Eddy Franklin and the Loop Current is expected to increase over the
next few days. Two AOML drifters deployed by the RIV Walton Smith and previously
deployed USCG SLDMB drifters have followed Eddy Franklin clockwise around to the
southwest. However, one Horizon Marine drifter, drogued to 50 meters, followed the
eastern edge of Eddy Franklin, then south to the Loop current, and into the Florida
Straits, confirming at least some connection. We continue to monitor the situation
closely.
We do expect that there are some scattered tarball fields already circulating in Eddy
Franklin. Most of these tarballs will continue to circulate in the eddy, while they continue
to weather and spread and become widely scattered. If and when Eddy Franklin more
fully re-connects with the main Loop current, a fraction of these tarballs may move to the
Florida Straits. We expect that any tarballs that persist long enough to ultimately enter
the Florida Straits will be highly weathered and widely scattered. In order for tarballs to
reach shorelines, there must be a persistent shoreward wind to bring them to the coast. At
this time, we estimate that the fraction that may reach shorelines may be slightly above
background levels oftarballs already on the Florida shorelines.
How we are monitoring We continue to monitor the Loop Current characteristics from
a number of satellite and model sources, a vessel contracted by BP to monitor at the
northern front, and drifter buoys dropped in or near the Loop Current over the last few
weeks.
The US Coast Guard has been conducting regular overflights to look for signs of
significant oil over the Florida Shelf and Loop Current; a NOAA observer has been on
board every 2-3 days. To date no recoverable oil has been reported from these
overflights.
In addition, a sentry plan has been put in place by the Florida Peninsula Incident
command. It consists ofvessels transecting the Florida Current, west of the Dry Tortugas,
in order to measure the tarball concentrations entering the Florida Straits. This activity
should serve to provide a warning if significant tarball fields approach the Florida Straits.
To date they have not reported any tarballs.
What can be expected in tbe future The disperse "tail" of oil between the source and
Eddy Franklin may become a larger source of oil moving toward the Loop Current. If
Eddy Franklin remains separated from the Loop Current, most of the oil will circulate
around the central gulf, weatbering and dissipating long before nearing any shorelines. If
Eddy Franklin re-joins the main Loop Current, any oil moved to the northern extent of
the eddy will once again have a pathway to the Florida Straits and beyond. We will
continue daily monitoring of the Loop Current in order to monitor this re-connection.
June 25,2010
009457
Deepwater Horizon MC~52

Loop Current Location Relative to Oil Slick
June 25, 2010
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is closely monitoring the Deepwater Horizon MC252 slick's proximity to the Loop
Current in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Loop Current is an area of warm water that comes up from the Caribbean, flowing past the Yucatan Peninsula and into the Gulf of Mexico.
It generally curves east across the Gulfand then flows south parallel to the west Florida coast; it becomes the Florida Current as it moves through
the Florida Straits, where it finally joins the Gulf Stream and travels up the Atlantic Coast.
Sometimes the northern part of the Loop Current separates from the main Loop Current, forming a large rotating region of water, known as an eddy.
There are also smaller eddys that form along the edges of the Loop Current.
Both the location of the Loop Current and location of the oil slick are dynamic and constantly changing. The present location of the oil is identified daily
through analysis of satellite imagery, observer overflights and advanced technology on aircraft. This information is also keeping us informed ofhow far
away the oil is from the Loop Current each day. If oil from the spill enters the Loop Current, it would take at least a few days or more to reach the
Florida Straits. During this transit time, the natural processes of evaporation and dispersion would reduce the oil volume significantly. The remaining oil
would be mostly in the form oftarballs.
The figure below, updated daily, shows the current location of the oil spill based on satellite imagery. It also depicts the current location of the loop
current and an eddy north of the loop current called Eddy Franklin. Currently, no recoverable amounts of oil have been reported in the Loop Current or
Eddy Franklin. However, a small portion ofthe oil is being moved to the south towards Eddy Franklin, forming a "tail" like extension, and tarballs have
been reported along the northeast corner of Eddy Franklin. There are indications that Eddy Franklin has a slight connection with the main loop current,
and may re-join it over the next few weeks. If this rejoining continues, it would again provide a clearer pathway for tarballs to move to the Florida
Straits.
82'O'O'W
OO'O'O'W
Slick location derived by NOAA NESDIS from

MODIS TERRA data aquired June 25, 2010 at 1143 CDT,
ENVISAT ASAR data aquired June 24, 2010 at 2254 CDT
and SPOT Image data aquired June 24, 2010 at 1130 COT.
Loop Current and eddy analysis updated on June 25, 20 I0 by
NOAAiAOML from satellite altimetry-derived sea surface
height fields obtained from NASA and ESA.
0/;)
Cl
,Q.~
:'
._j
~~0\
IJ
./;.0'"
~"'~')~
':t
~o
~l\.l
o
I
Map prepared June 25, 2010 by

62.5
125
250
Miles
009458
Re: Review of Endnotes for Oil Budget application: correct attachment
Subject: Re: Review of Endnotes for Oil Budget application: correct attachment
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:09:49 -0700
CC: Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Sorry! I need to do a better job naming my files ... and paying attention. Here is the correct one.
Mark
Mark Sogge
Deputy Chair. NIC Flow Rate Technical Group
Chief of Staff. USGS Western Region
Cell: 928-606-1286; FAX: 928-556-7266
mark_sogge@usgs.gov
From:
To:
Date:
"Mark K S099o" <mark_soggo@usgs.gov>
Subject:
061251201007:15 PM
Mark,
I think you might have attached the wrong file. These were your previous edits on the project overview document.
Thanks, though.
<.(----<.----<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
( ...
----<.
On Jun 25, 2010, at 1:01PM, Mark K Sogge wrote:
Hi Sky,
I have a few comments (attached) on the endnotes. The key comments involve how to explain the use of different flow rates pre- and post-riser cut. Let me
know if any questions.
Mark
Mark Sogge
Cell: 928-606-1286; FAX: 928-556-7266
mark sogge@usgs.gov
From:
Sky Bristol <sbriStOI@U5gS.QOY>
To:
Mark K Sogge . Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark Mn~r - NOAA <mark.w.mitler@noaa.aov>. Bill Lehr <Bill.lehr@noaa.QOV>
Date:
061241201002:16 PM
Subject:
Review of Endnotes for Oil Budget application
Sorry t.o keep bugging you all wit.h so many 'Ching", but. t.here are alway" quit.e a few det.aih t.o work t.hrough in get.t.ing an applicat.ion like 'Chi" out. t.he
door. I've at.tached a Word documen'C containing the annotations we are putting t.oge'Cher in 'Che application. U"er" in the Web applicat.ion .... ill click to bring
10f2
9/27/20102:08 PM
009459
Re: Review of Endnotes for Oil Budget application: correct attachment
the.'!! up from the executive :tumma.ry, and the print report.:s (beta example attached) will reference them as end not.es.
You'll ::I-ee in the eo1tltlients for tolle first annot.ation that there are a couple of dis1!inct sections, part of which will :5how the Cl.trnmt. dynamic
values/facto:t3 that go into the calculat.ion. If one or more folks could give thi~ a read and suggest. any ehanges, that would be very helpful. I tried t.o
JCOatly use 'text from ene Ma!l5 Balance Formulas document wi"t.h a litt.le bit of modific~tion geared toward the Coast Guard user audience.
Thank you very m!Jch. I know you are all very bU3Y, and I appreciate any time you have to help.
[att,<lchment "Docamenta.tion for Oil 8u0get Tool.docx n deleted by Mark K S09ge/DO/OSGS/DOI)
[at.tachment
"OeepwaterHorizonOileud9'~t20100620
.pdf" deleted by
Marle K S09ge/OO/OSGS/OOI)
p.s. Don't worry about. t.he fClnky negative value" in the example report for the Low Flow Rat.e ,scenario. That b
resolve somewhere in the calculations or how the model play" out.
<. {( {< ...... -<.
part of t.he problet:l we ate working t.o
......... <. {(
Sky Bristol
sb::: i~t.ol @u59s.qov
Office: 303-2Q2-4181
((
--
....... <. ( {<
<OiIBudgetApplication-ProjectOverview - MKS edits.doc>
nm"'C' ' '"' LQt..j't?,ii..,",," for Oil Budget Tool _ MKS comments.docx
,
20f2
C t tT
applicationlvnd.openxmlformatson en ype:
9/27/20102:08 PM
009460
Documentation for Oil Budget Tool- The following sections will be recorded in the Web
application as clickable links on the elements in the Executive Summary. They will also
be put together into a set of endnotes for the printed reports.
Discharged
[rhe Discharge values' shoWn in the.reportscomefrom the law and high estimates
detenninedby the National IncideritCoroinand FlowRate TechnicalOroup (FRTO). f9r
tbeDeepwater Horize!noil'sPitl incident. The most roceot f1()W estimate frOlTl theFRTO
is 35,OOOto60,QOObarrels per day
... ,....... .
(h!tp:/lwww.deepwatertJorizonresponse.COmlgo/d&l2931le615S3D piseft:aige"tates are
a4jasteEi ever time ift the Ei&:ta eeitifKiUle applie&:tiElA eased 00 analyses ElY the FRTO sf
6RaRgiflg Q.yR8lHies iN the iNeiEiem(e.g.,s.eeriag therjse~l ......
m
____ ____ W ' "
m"
'C<>JI1J11ent.[MKS'I):Thc FRlYdOCllllOtJ "

.,~ommend usiogOi~erentf1ltcs for~ and
DiseAafge f6tes use flew limi~ frem FRTG Plume TeamPIV fASestIFSfAeats
GRaaeA tiseeuae.same me~n.lfSmeatmetR9a yssa pI'! aflepest .riaer el:lt
OI:hSf esamatiaa mel:heS5J*'9~!iee(l higher aaa le\\'1*' ~!all:les" ...
iLow Flow Rate/Maximum Removal Scenario DetailS.. ..
PailyDisClwgeR,ate(Al'rl120, 2010". June.:2~
.~~:,20;OOOJ;\arrel$
Daily Dis.chargeRa.te (June 3,.2010 -present) ::',OOOBarrels I........................ ..
Note: Refer to the section on Leakage in the Mass Balance Formulas (link) document for
a full discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
~$Isutsi~tions;'.~iflhCt<lOl'llSCSditl'erent
l'atcs.ii'sbould,be explaimd tI1attlUswas'a

dccisioli"y.th~USCG..'
.
.....
Comment [SB2): 1'hese sections arefrom.a

set of fe<lOrdcd notes aoout 1he wculations
that are used to describe the element in the
rc:polt
.'
Comment [SB3]: 1'hese an: all dynamic
j
sections specific 10 the scenario showing
detailedinformation.on the calculation and/or I
,values used.
.
)
Con;tment[MI<S4]:PcrtileilOte above. the
officialFRTQCSlimatc,isa nLII8e(3S-6Ok) that
sIlOllld'lxrusc4 bOtb'befon: and after 1he,riscr
ClJt.So IIIis d~scription sbouldsay'sollletlling
.Iike~ 1'f'0I' lbec31culations in Ibis oil

RITI and Top Hat are mechanical devices metfteEls that BP has have beea used HHhe
iacideRt FespeRse to recover lealdag oil from the spill lowsHe. Values for the amount
recovered are reported by BP, and entered daily by National Incident Command
personnel and used in the calculation of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of all
Dispersed Naturally
Natural oil dispersion is Itheresi:ilt e(a..siji~t#i:tH! is~ritn~1:eai~aleal9.fiiJl'4:~~i.l~g .~~~ ............... ...methods described in this annotation and background documentation. The following
budget
tool.ttteUSCQ used thetbUowiJ'g tale
. ' .'. .. .... ....
<~inaies:Mi
'rComment [SB5]:1'hesescetions refertotbe

i sc:ctionintbe NOAA Mass<Balance Formlllas
I document containing further information.
009461

Natural subsurface dispersion is a calculation of the total discharge minus a calculation of

subsurface chemical dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural dispersion effectiveness
derived from a scientific method of determining oil dispersion in the water column. A
higher factor is used for the "Maximum Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of
oil "removed." See background documentation for more information.
Low Flow Rate/Maximum Removal Scenario Details
Natural Dispersion Effectiveness Fraction, subsurface 0.2

Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas (link)
Evaporation and dissolution occur naturally with oil on the surface. This element in the
report is the result of a scientific calculation using the methods described in this
annotation and background documentation. The following assumptions and factors apply:

Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the
report) and older oil for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are used to
represent the difference in this rate. The evaporation/dissolution calculation first
determines the remaining oil available for evaporative processes by removing the
following from the total discharge:

The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific research and
Evaporation rate on freshly surfaced oil (includes dissolution) - 0.44

Evaporation rate on day-old oil- 0.06
009462
Note: Refer to the section on Evaporated and Dissolved Oil in the Mass Balance
Formulas (link) document for a full discussion of the scientific methodology used in this
calculation.
The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the remaining oil
after removing the following from the total discharge:

Skimmed
Skimmed oil is a rough calculation based on the daily reported amount of oily water
multiplied by a factored estimation of net oil content. The net oil factor is different for the
Maximum and Minimum Removal scenarios.

The actual amount of skimmed oil should ultimately be based on actual measurement

New oil fraction of oily water - 0.4
Note: Refer to the section on Skimmed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas (link)
document for a discussion of this calculation.
Burned
Total burned values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel and used
in daily and cumulative totals.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) bum rate standards are used
Note: Refer to the section on Burning Losses in the Mass Balance Formulas (link)
document for a discussion of the methodology used in this calculated measurement.
009463
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scientific calculation based on the amount of
chemical dispersant applied and recorded daily and acting on both surface and subsurface
oil. The following assumptions and factors apply:

International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of
20:1 used as estimate for successful chemical dispersant application
Chemical dispersion effectiveness, surface - 0.5

Chemical dispersion effectiveness fraction, subsurface - 1
Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas (link)
009464
From: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov> .
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 201023:23:09 -0400
cc: Neal Parry <NeaI.Parry@noaa.gov>, "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
"Arthur E. Paterson" <Arthur.E.Paterson@noaa.gov>, Timothy Gallagher
<timothy.gallagher@noaa.gov>
Folks,
Thanks for chasing these numbers down for the Mexico brief. I am on leave until
Wednesday (and, yes I am sneaking away to check my crackberry when I can ... ), so
please send any updates to the following people:
Arthur Paterson (ce'd)
Tim Gallagher (cc'd)
Cheers,
--Brendan
I
i WRT Flow Rate, the most recent current post-riser cut range from FRTG is
135,.000-60,OOObbls/day. This should be reduced to reflect recovery from the Top
I Hat system. To day, the best days o~ recovery are around 20,OOObbls/day, but
!within 2 weeks, BF is trying to recover 90% of the gross flow through an
! upgraded system that runs on kryptonite.
I!
~
!
HASAP
II
Neal Parry wrote:
j i Mark,
!,.
on Monday morning we need to return the document to Brendan
II very much,
Thanks
!
1
!! II Neal
. Mark.W.Miller wrote:
USGS is just finishing up an Oil Budget tool for CG which will be able to
I
"answer" those questions. Of course the "answers" are more guess than
answer. I will ask our USGS rep to gin something up. Do we have a schedule
! for the brief or a due date for the document?
I.
I.
i
! ; mark
I
II
!
I
Wengren wrote:
Mark,
Neal and I pulled the numbers from the daily briefing report as well as
advice?
Thanks,
lof2
9/27/20102:08 PM
009465
II
Micah
Brendan M. Bray <brendan.bray@noaa.gov>

Program and Management Analyst
"'
i
i

NOAA - National Ocean Service
\",~----...
2of2
- - -...---...-..-.-~--~-.j
9/27/20102:08 PM
009466
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 201023:47:41 -0400
CC: Micah Wengren <Micah.Wengren@noaa.gov>, Sherry Lippiatt
<Sherry.Lippiatt@noaa.gov>, Neal Parry <NeaI.Parry@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>
No schedule for the brief, but the due date for a revised document is COB Monday.
Thanks!
--Brendan
! USGS is just finishing up an Oil Budget tool for CG which will be able to
"answer" those questions. Of course the "answers" are more guess than answer. I
I will ask our USGS rep to gin something up. Do we have a schedule for the brief
lor a due date for the document?
I
i
mark
I Micah
! 1 Mark,
Wengren wrote:
i!
and I pulled the numbers

III' Neal
the NGA graphic that contains
from the daily briefing report as well as

all the relevant info. The only question
Ilwe couldn't answer was the flow
rl
!! oil volume since we aren't sure what estimate numbers to use. Any
l! advice?
!I
~, I~
~
!
II
II!
!
I
i
Ii
I!
,
'
! I Thanks,
~
If
I!
I 1
i Micah
f
j!
lion 06/25/2010 11:15 AM, Sherry Lippiatt wrote:
I!
i!
III :::sM:::~er
"Hf!'
came to me through Brendan Bray. Nickie Lambert is on
leave so I think it is up to the NIC to respond. Below I pulled out a

list of what needs to be updated from the DH-Cuba nonpaper so that
'1: that Arthur Paterson (IPO) can draft the response to Mexico. Hopefully
this information already exists, I think NGA produces the oil
.1 extent/loop current graphic daily?
t"l' Let me know if I can help,
Sherry
iI
~ i
,1 [I
'
I
lof4
:UPdated Oil extent and loop current graphic"
*The following is a synopsis of DEEPWATER HORIZON response efforts:*
9/27/20102:08 PM
009467
II!
Total active response vessels: over 1,680

Overall personnel responding: more than 20,000
Containment boom deployed: more than 1.9 million feet
Sorbent boom deployed: more than 1.5 million feet
IIII
Oily water recovered: nearly 13.8 million gallons

Surface dispersant used: more than 755 / 000 gallons
Subsea dispersant used: nearly 225,000 gallons
In-situ burn: more than 2.8 million
11
following volume of oil in the Gulf can be estimateo 42 days into this
incident: *
II
!i
$
I
{ ~
IiI'
at 12,000 barrels a day there may be 504,000 barrels of oil (or

21,168,000 gallons);
- !
iI
at 19,000 barrels a day there may be 798,000 barrels of oil (or

33,516,000 gallons); and
11
l
ilil
at 25,000 barrels a day there may be 1,050,000 barrels of oil (or

44 / 100,000 gallons).
i'l!
!!
.~
-------- Original
-------Subject:
ACTION needed -by COB Monday - DWH Brief for Mexico
Date:
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:49:06 -0400
From:
Brendan
<Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>
To:
Arthur Paterson <Arthur.E.Paterson@noaa.gov>
CC:
Glenda Powell <Glenda.Powell@noaa.gov>, Sarah Morison
<Sarah.Morison@noaa.gov>, Sherry Lippiatt <Sherry.Lippiatt@noaa.gov>,
Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Lambert@noaa.gov>, Joe Inslee
<Joe.lnslee@noaa.gov>, David Holst <David.Holst@noaa.gov>
References:
<4C2373CD.8040004@noaa.gov>
<4C237CDC.3060309@noaa.gov> <4C237FFO.70505@noaa.gov>
Arthur et all
~
I
~
'Ii,
J
_!
2of4
'NOAA IA Dr. Turner/Allison Reed have seen all of these attached

documents and in the case of Cuba and Bahamas, drafted part of them.
ORR will have input/updates/changes.
Glenda/Sarah can you work with Nickie Lambert (for ERD) /Sherry
Lippiatt (for NIC)? to update 6/24-6/26 updates to factual items such
as 1) DWH spill volumes and flow rate, 2) loop current and
3)cleared long-term
ectory All of this information is outlined
pretty well in the attached, pre-cleared international papers.
Arthur - Based on your email below I assume someone in IPO (perhaps
- Steve or Gonzalo?) will coordinate drafting and submission of the
final version of this Mexico brief / "non-paper" to Dr. Turner's
office *as I am on leave from 3pm today through 6/30.* Please reply
all to this message -with a final IPO contact for this specific-
9/27/20102:08 PM
009468
tasker.
Thanks!
, I think this is an easy one for folks as most of the material is

written, it just a matter of updates. Call me if there something
L
s .~ critical that comes up (my celli is on ResponseLINK) .
!!
I!
/1
Cheers,
--Brendan
!l
It
*BACKGROUND EMAIL CHAIN BELOW>*
Brendan,
ft
Thanks for timely response. These are useful to have and I will be
certain that Turner/Reed receive these (and they may have
seen/cleared these already).
Hope ORR will let me know if there is
in the way of updates
that will be needed.
!III,'
Enjoy the vacation!
If'
arthur
I!
it
Brendan Bray wrote:
L
,
!f 1i
!! j,
Folks,
Attached is a document with previously cleared talking points on the

DWH oil
11 for the international community. Also attached are
two previously cleared documents for Cuba and the Bahamas that
I . generally answer many of the same questions asked by Mexico. Some
'" jI
of this information will need updating, but for the most part
i'
provides the information requested.
!!
: My understanding is that the risk to Mexico is relatively low.
I am on leave starting this afternoon through next Wednesday, but
. please call me with any specific
I
!
I"
L
i Ir
~
II:
II
II
! I,
!
I
30f4
--Brendan
Hello all (Sara - since you came to the Dep Mtg),
, Here is an incoming request from Turner, asking for NOS to respond
to questions from Mexico on the oil spill by Monday COB. Please
send response to James Turner with a cc:Pam Toschik and Allison
Reed and Arthur Paterson) by cob Monday.
Thank you and apology for short notice.
Arthur
Brief for Mexico
Date:
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:19:38 -0400
From:
To:
'martin.medina@noaa.gov' <Martin.Medina@noaa.gov>,
'Jean-Pierre.Ple@noaa.gov' <Jean-Pierre.Ple@noaa.gov>,
'arthur.e.paterson@noaa.gov' <Arthur.E.paterson@noaa.gov>,
'mark.paese@noaa.gov' <Mark.Paese@noaa.gov>,
9/27/2010 2:08 PM
009469
'chris.beaverson@noaa.gov' <Chris.Beaverson@noaa.gov>,
'ed.gorecki@noaa.gov' <Edward.Gorecki@noaa.gov>,
'Brent.Smith@noaa.gov' <Brent.Smith@noaa.gov>,
'Rebecca.Lent@noaa.gov' <Rebecca.Lent@noaa.gov>,
'clement.lewsey@noaa.gov' <Clement.Lewsey@noaa.gov>,
'Dan.Thompson@noaa.gov' <Dan.Thompson@noaa.gov>,
'Rene.Eppi@noaa.gov' <Rene.Eppi@noaa.gov>
CC:
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov' <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>,
'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov' <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>,
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
'sykessz@state.gov' <sykessz@state.gov>, 'kimeab@state.gov'
<kimeab@state.gov>, 'ColonFA@state.gov' <ColonFA@state.gov>,
'james.turner@noaa.gov' <James.Turner@noaa.gov>,
'Elizabeth.McLanahan@noaa.gov' <Elizabeth.McLanahan@noaa.gov>
I
!
As you know, the Embassy of Mexico asked questions on the oil

spill. All the questions pertained to NOAA areas. The State
Department asked NOAA to take the lead in responding.
The LO assignments for the specific questions (sent by previous
email) are as follows:
. NOS-the spread of oil
., I
II
: i
: I
NOS-the areas where the currents may take it (these 2 questions may
be combined into 1 response)
NMFS-the impact on fisheries
All LOs-any preventative or remedial action that can be foreseen
and undertaken or aspect that NOAA may deem relevant
Please prepare responses as assigned and submit to me (cc:Pam
Toschik and Allison Reed) by cob Monday. The format will be a text
non-paper that will be passed to Mexicoi releaseable charts,
and maps may be used. Please use to the maximum extent
possible previously cleared material.
1
I
I I
I!
i! I
j
OIA will seek final clearance and work with State to clari
where/when the briefing will take place. (The briefing will be to
walk Mexico through the non-paper).
Thank you.

of4
9/27/20102:08 PM
RE: Users and Groups for Oil Budget Tool
009486
Subject: RE: Users and Groups for Oil Budget Tool

From: "Hoffman, Peter CDR" <Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:23:26 -0400
To: sbristol@usgs.gov, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
cc: Martha
Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "O'Brien, Sean
II
CDR <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, "McElroy, Amy LT" <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>
Users (all usernames are in the @uscg.mil email domain):
1) Readers: NIC-PROD-1, NIC-PROD-2, NIC-PROD-3, NIC-PROD-4, NIC-RFI-1,
NIC-RFI-2, NIC-UNIT-LDR, NIC-USER
2) Authors:
peter.m.hoffman, sean.k.o'brien, jennifer.d.osetek, john.r.mcdonald
3) Manager:
amy.mcelroy
We assume that Readers will have no access to modify

and so can be set
up with position-based logins.
Sean O'Brien is taking over the Situation Unit here at the NIC and the
administration of the development of this tool.
Regarding Martha's inquiry for training for the tool, USGS can provide a final
feature demonstration to author & manager users when the tool is officially
rolled out. The NIC Situation Unit will then take care of training any
subsequent users.
Regards,
CDR Pete Hoffman
-----Original Message----From: sbristol@usgs.gov [mailto:sbristol@usgs.gov]
To: Hoffman, Peter CDR; Mark Miller - NOAA
Cc: Martha Garcia; Tim Kern
As discussed on the call today, we need to get the list of users who will access
1) Readers (View executive summary and daily values and print
.)
2) Authors (also have reader
; Enter daily values and annotations.)
3)
(also have reader and author rights; Modify global variables,
peer review.
Requests need to come from someone we trust to determine access rights. >From
lof2
9/27/20102:08 PM
009487
what I've heard from you all, I think that means one of the following/ but please
- USGS liaison to the NIC (currently Martha Garcia)
When making new user requests/ the following information needs to be provided:
The fact that you are making the request for the Deepwater Horizon oil budget
tool
removed from access
The roles (readers/ authors/ managers) for each of the users to be added AND/OR
following methods:
- Telephone (0700-1900 Eastern - Monday through Friday) servicedesk@usgs.gov AND
myusgs@usgs.gov
the following:
and pre-launch feedback. We will grant full access rights to these individuals so
2) List of users who will fall into the three roles described above when we go
live with the application late Thursday or early Friday.
personnel, we can get a little more "hard core" on the process such that we
specifies the authorized "new user authorization" contacts. This would be
<.
----<.
----<.
(<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. ----<.
20f2 .
----<.
9/27/20102:08 PM
009491

From: "O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:32:17 -0400
To: kernt@usgs.gov
CC: "McElroy, Amy Lr' <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOAA
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, sbristol@usgs.gov
Tim:
Correct except just a typo ... nic-prod-1@uscg.mil, rest follow the same format.
Sean O'Brien, CDR
Situation Unit Supervisor
(
(c)
-----Original Message----From: kernt@usgs.gov [mailto:kernt@usgs.gov]
To: Hoffman, Peter CDR
Cc: McElroy, Amy LT; Mark Miller - NOAA; Martha Garcia; Hoffman, Peter CDR;
sbristo1@usgs.gov; O'Brien, Sean CDR
Cmd Hoffman,
I am setting up access for the listed individuals, but have a question on the
Readers. Are these service email addresses (eg., nic-prod-1@usgs.mil)?
Tim Kern
Information Science Branch
USGS Fort Collins Science Center
2150 Centre Ave, Building C
Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118
(fax)
From:
"Hoffman, Peter CDR" <Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>
To:
<sbristol@usgs.gov>, "Mark Miller - NOAA" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Cc:
"Martha Garcia" <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, "Tim Kern" <kernt@usgs.gov>,
"O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, "McElroy, Amy LT"
<Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>
Date:
06/26/2010 10:24 AM
Subject:
RE: Users and Groups for Oil. Budget Tool
Sent by:
Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil
Users (all usernames are in the @uscg.mil email domain):

1) Readers: NIC-PROD-I, NIC-PROD-2, NIC-PROD-3, NIC-PROD-4, NIC-RFI-1,
NIC-RFI-2, NIC-UNIT-LDR, NIC-USER
lof3
9/27/20102:08 PM
009492
2) Authors:
peter.m.hoffman, sean.k.o'brien,
3) Manager:
amy.mcelroy
jennifer.~.osetek,
john.r.mcdonald
We assume that Readers will have no access to modi

parameters and so can be set
up with position-based logins.
Sean O'Brien is taking over the Situation Unit here at the NIC and the
administration of the development of this tool.
Regarding Martha's inquiry for training for the tool, USGS can provide a final
feature demonstration to author & manager users when the tool is officially
rolled out. The NrC Situation Unit will then take care of training any
subsequent users.
Regards,
CDR Pete Hoffman
-----Original Message----From: sbristol@usgs.gov [mailto:sbristol@usgs.gov <mailto:sbristol@usgs.gov> ]
To: Hoffman, Peter CDR; Mark Miller - NOAA
Cc: Martha Garcia; Tim Kern
As discussed on the call today, we need to
the list of users who will access
1) Readers (View executive summary and daily values and print reports.)
2) Authors (also have reader rights; Enter daily values and annotations.)
3) Managers (also have reader and author
i Modify global variables,
peer review.
Requests need to come from someone we trust to determine access rights. >From
what I've heard from you all, I think that means one of the following, but please
- USGS liaison to the NIC (currently Martha Garcia)
When making new user requests, the following information needs to be provided:
- The fact that you are making the request for the Deepwater Horizon oil budget
tool
removed from access
- The roles (readers, authors, managers) for each of the users to be added AND/OR
20f3
9/27/20102:08 PM
009493

following methods:
- Telephone (0700-1900 Eastern - Monday through Friday) - 703-648-HELP
- Email (anytime but potentially slower response) - servicedesk@usgs.gov AND
myusgs@usgs.gov
the following:
and pre-launch feedback. We will grant full access
to these individuals so
2) List of users who will fall into the three roles described above when we go
live with the application late Thursday or
Friday.
personnel, we can get a little more "hard core" on the process such that we
specifies the authorized "new user authoriz~tion" contacts. This would be
<. (( ----<. (( ----<. ((

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. ( (
3 of3
--
---<. ( (
9/27/20102:08 PM
009494

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 201011:34:25 -0700
To: "Grawe, William" <William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil>
CC: "Kunkel, Kevin" <Kevin.Kunkel@mms.gov>, Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark
Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Bill,
Kevin Kunkel and Martha Garcia are looking at this right now, and Kevin advised
me that it was broached in a conf call today that Martha also participated in.
I'm awaiting the disposition/agency position on this.
NIC-IASG
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 12:41 PM
To: Brown, Baron CDR
Importance: High
Baron ... do you know if FRTG and MMS folks are lookikng into these Q's?
-----Original Message----From: NIC-RFI-1
Importance: High
Good Afternoon,
vir,
LT Christine Kimak
Situation Unit

Support Team; Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR;
Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott CDR; Mackenzie,
Nathan LT; Mason, Robert; McLaughlin, Daniel CDRi Morrison, Stephanie LCDRi
Warren, Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPTi Smith, Glynn CDR; St.
Beth LCDR; Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPT; Didominicus, LOUi Re, Joseph
CAPT; Bouziane, Michele LCDRi Goad, Michael; Reese, Tamekia; Smith, Beverly;
Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger; Amidon, Dale;
Armstrong, Richard LT; Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin 1Ti Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn,
Patrick CAPTi Hallock, Johnene LT; Harker, Thomas CDRi Hellberg, Jonathan LCDRi
10f4
9/27/20102:08 PM
009495
Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR; Keffer, Benjamin LT; Lomba/ Manuel LCDR;
Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson, Robert CAPT:
Warney,
; Yacobi, James; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DG-lst-CG-821: HQS-DGlst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR: Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela; Manzi,
Kathryn: Martyn, DavidCTR; McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William CTR; Smith,
Derek LCDR; hqs-dg-Ist-dcms-82; Medina, Lizette; Montgomery, Patrick LTi
Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
-----Original Message----From: Jones, Melinda [mailto:Melinda.E.Jones@uscg.dhs.govl
To: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit: HQS-DG-LST-CG DCa-Incident Support Team:
Offutt, Todd CDR: Moland, Mark CDR; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Jones, Melinda; Dickey, Laura CDR: Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott CDR;
Mackenzie, Nathan LT: Mason, Robert: McLaughlin, Daniel CDR; Morrison, Stephanie
LCDR; Warren, Robert CDR: Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn
CDR; St. John, Jordan: Wright, Howard CDR; Derian, Matthew LT; Lauzon, Michelle
CTR; Na
Beth LCDR: Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPTi Didominicus, LOUi
Re, Joseph CAPT; Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Goad, Michael; Reese, Tamekia; Smith,
Beverly; Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger:
Amidon, Dale; Armstrong, Richard LT; Bromell, Robert: Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta,
Carlos; Flynn, Patrick CAPT: Hallock, Johnene LTj Harker, Thomas CDR; Hellberg,
Jonathan LCDR; Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR: Keffer, Benjamin LT; Lomba,
Lee CDR: Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson,
Manuel LCDR; Mohr, Kevin CDR:
Robert CAPT; Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Hickey, Jon CDR: HQS-DG-Ist-CG-821:
HQS-DG-Ist-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR: Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela:
Manzi, Kathryn; Martyn, David CTR: McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William CTR;
Smith, Derek LCDR: hqs-dg-lst-dcms-82i Medina, Lizette; Montgomery, Patrick LT;
Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
questions.
2011.
ASSIGNMENTS:
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3542: The Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured "beyond all
2of4
9/27/2010 2:08 PM
009496
Gulf of Mexico is not. just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown on
American television,
but from at least 18 other sites on the "fractured
Database Access: <file:III\\hgs-nas-t-OOl\CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearings\Database
\Qlndex.2010.xlsm>
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
External Coordination Division (CG-82~)
U. S. Coast Guard
BACKGROUND
"BP.A dire report circulating in the Kremlin today that was prepared for Prime
Minister Putin by Anatoly Sagalevich of Russia's ShirshovInstitute of Oceanology
and our World should begin preparing for an ecological disaster "beyond
comprehension" unless "extraordinarymeasures" are undertaken to stop the massive
note about Sagal~vich's warning is that he and his fellow scientists from the'
by British oil giant BPshortly after the
22nd sinking of the Deepwater
diveand his expertise with Russia's two Deep Submergence Vehicles MIR 1 andMIR 2
of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown
officials about what theywere seeing on the sea floor, including the US Senator
wouldindicate/ if that's true, that the well casing itself is actuallypierced ...
what we're facing. "Though not directly stated in Sagalevich's report, Russian
scientists findings on the true state of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are
30f4
9/27/20102:08 PM
009497
Mexico. On CNBC's Fast Money, he sayshe'd be surprised if BP lasted this summer,
saying this is disaster isentirely BP's fault.nAs a prominent oil-industry
and probably ruiningthe Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well."Obama's government,
attempt that failed),which have been documented in a U.. S. Department of Energy
report on theU.S.S.R. 's peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.Russia is now
urging the United States to consider doing the same.Komsomoloskaya Pravda,
the
experience there's a one-in-five chance anuke might not seal the well, it's u a
gamble the Americans couldcertainly risk."Reportedly,
"mainconcern" is not the environmental catastrophe this disaster is causing, but
the continued production of oil from the Gulf of Mexicoiand which in an energy
its production."
4of4
9/27/20102:08 PM
Fwd: Oil Budget & R
009498
Subject: Fwd: Oil Budget & R

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:07:48 -0600
To: Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Mark
Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>
Greetings,
As I indicate in the forwarded note, we are working as expeditiously as possible to get the
engineering all in place to support the new R program model for the oil budget tool. The
inputs and outputs are still pretty much the same variables, so much of the application will
remain the same. The parts that will change are the ability for anyone other than the
science support team familiar with R being able to change the model in any way, and the
spreadsheet output will probably not be possible under this model. David Mack and the
team at FORT have this well in hand, and we'll hopefully have something ready later today
or early tomorrow for review.
We do want to get this turned over to the Coast Guard ASAP, but as Martha said in a
previous note, we want to get them the right tool. Please help us in communicating the
current status through your liaison with folks at the NIC and other important stakeholders.
Thank you.
<.----<.((----<.(((<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<.----<.----<.
I~~:::J~~~ ~~~~61~~~6~~~~~SMg~~>
. I To: "Possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
I Cc: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, "Espina, Pedro I." <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, David
I Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>

! Subject: Re: Oil Budget & R
II
Thank you, Antonio. We look forward to working with you on this. David Mack and Tim
Kern from the Fort Collins Science Center have the engineering lead on the
I Web-based data entry/maintenance and reporting application. They are working on
! replacing the simple calculation model for the oil budget that was contained in a set of
i online-configurable formulas and variables to the R program model. We've had
experience with this in the past on an invasive species modeling system. and they are
I working to set up the necessary application server components to run the R program
in. the most efficient man ner possible.
David or Tim will be contacting you today to get a copy of the code and work through
lof4
9/27/20102:08 PM
Fwd: Oil Budget & R
009499
some details. We're going to work this into a versioning sys.tem (Subversion) so that
the actual calculating model can be maintained as a component in conjunction with
the data entry and reporting application. From the sample output files that Bill
forwarded, it looks like the basic output variables are pretty much the same, so the
reporting application should not need to change (good for getting this thing delivered
to the Coast Guard soonest). However, we have also heard a little bit about possibly
modifying the input parameters to introduce more granularity on collection methods,
so we'll have to go into this with the expectation that we may need to modify and
version the model a bit over time as requirements evolve.
.i
One other difference I see is that the initial decision by the small science support team
put together to work on this application recommended using only the low and high
estimate scenarios, dropping the mean for now. We'll need to validate that this is what
the Coast Guard wants, but that may require some tweaks to optimize the R program
for only the necessary calculations and outputs.
As far as the application goes, we will be adding your name and any other credits
. necessary along with a reference to your documentation on the model to the About
page in the application. The work of putting together and delivering this application is
I also being conducted under the recently formed John Wesley Powell Center for
i Analysis and Synthesis (http://powellcenter.usgs.govO, and we're prepping some
! pages there that will showcase the this (and all the people involved) as a "rapid
j response" project, a new type of activity being conducted through the Center. We're
I actually quite excited about the future implications of this work on other projects that
have similar although less emergent needs.
!
I
l <.----<.----<.({
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
( <----<. ----<.( <
I On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
!1
I
Bill,
I
I This is excellent news that the colleagues at USGS have familiarity withR.
I
I The specific calculations for the uncertainty analysis aside, I believe that the
whole mass balance estimation process will be much easier to control and
maintain in R than in Excel.
J I'll be happy to share my code with them, and to explain it to them, either in
I"
2of4
9/27/2010 2:08 PM
Fwd: Oil Budget & R
009500
person (which is always best), or over the phone. I'll be grateful for their peer
review of it, and for their critical evaluation that may improve it.
Please let them know that they are welcome to contact me, preferably via eMail,
but possibly also over the phone (see below), so that we may define the best
course of action to transfer the technology to them expeditiously.
I
I
I am now working on Rev. B of the report that we prepared for you, so that
additional details are included that may be helpful to the USGS colleagues. It will
be this Rev. B that will go through peer review internally within NIST.
II
t
I
I
lin addition, you may have noticed that the bottom figure on page 9 (of Rev. A) is
I superfluous, and indeed not meaningful (the same for the companion electronic
file) -- the top figure already shows the cumulative (total) oil remaining on the
surface.
, Any guidance you may like to provide about the negative values for VSD (daily
I increment of oil remaining on the surface, which VS is the cumulative sum of),
will be helpful.
I !i
I
!i
Here's the short bio that you requested:
I -----------------------------------------------------------I Dr. Antonio Possolo is Chief of the Statistical Engineering

I
I Division at NIST (U.S. Dept. of Commerce). He is a statistician

! (PhD, Yale University) specializing in the evaluation of
I measurement uncertainty, and in statistical models for
I
I
I
II
II
I
,
,!
! spatio-temporal phenomena. His previous experience includes

I
I sixteen years in industry (Boeing, General Electric), and seven

I
I years in academia (Princeton University, and University of

I Washington in Seattle).
30f4
9/27/20102:08 PM
Fwd: Oil Budget & R
009501
! ------------------------------------------------------------
I I still cannot find my name listed in relation with either the Plume Team or the
I
i FRTG at any of the obvious places where other names are listed (for example, in
the pages that are maintained by DOl). My superiors would really like to see this
corrected, and I thank you in advance for taking the steps necessary to do so.
Best regards,
I, -Antonio
,I I!
I
I
I - Antonio Possolo, PhD -- Chief

I Statistical Engineering Division
I
Information Technology Laboratory
1 National Institute of Standards & Technology
! Telephone:
4of4
9/27/20102:08 PM
Re: Fwd: Oil Budget & R
009502
Subject: Re: Fwd: Oil Budget & R

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 201008:30:12 -0500
CC: Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
Thanks Sky. We appreciate the team's great work, and your efforts to keep us updated and engaged. I know
this is not a simple task (though you make it seem so for us), especially as it keeps shifting around a bit
underneath you. But I am confident this will be an excellent tool.
Mark
Mark S09ge
mark_sogge@usgs.gov
From:
To:
Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Mark fv1ller<mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
Cc:
Kevin Gallagher <kgaUagher@usgs.gov>
Date:
06/29/201008:07 AM
Fwd: Oil Budget & R
Subject:
Greetings,
As I indicate in the forwarded note, we are working as expeditiously as possible to get the
engineering all in place to support the new R program model for the oil budget tool. The
inputs and outputs are still pretty much the same variables, so much of the application will
remain the same. The parts that will change are the ability for anyone other than the
science support team familiar with R being able to change the model in any way, and the
spreadsheet output will probably not be possible under this model. David Mack and the
team at FORT have this well in hand, and we'll hopefully have something ready later today
or early tomorrow for review.
current status through your liaison with folks at the NIC and other important stakeholders.
Thank you.
<.(<----<.(----<.
Sky Bristol
sbrislol@usgS.gov
lof4
9/27/20102:08
PM
009503

Date: June 29,20107:00:57 AM MDT
To: "Possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Cc: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, "Espina, Pedro I." <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, David
Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Subject: Re: Oil Budget & R
Thank you, Antonio. We look forward to working with you on this. David Mack and Tim Kern
from the Fort Collins Science Center have the engineering lead on the Web-based data
entry/maintenance and reporting application. They are working on replacing the simple
calculation model for the oil budget that was contained in a set of online-configurable
formulas and variables to the R program model. We've had experience with this in the past
on an invasive species modeling system, and they are working to set up the necessary
application server components to run the R program in the most efficient manner possible.
David or Tim will be contacting you today to get a copy of the code and work through some
details. We're going to work this into a versioning system (Subversion) so that the actual
calculating model can be maintained as a component in conjunction with the data entry and
reporting application. >From the sample output files that Bill forwarded, it looks like the
basic output variables are pretty much the same, so the reporting application should not
need to change (good for getting this thing delivered to the Coast Guard soonest). However,
we have also heard a little bit about possibly modifying the input parameters to introduce
more granularity on collection methods, so we'll have to go into this with the expectation
that we may need to modify and version the model a bit over time as requirements evolve.
One other difference I see is that the initial decision by the small science support team put
together to work on this application recommended using only the low and high estimate
scenarios, dropping the mean for now. We'll need to validate that this is what the Coast
Guard wants, but that may require some tweaks to optimize the R program for only the
necessary calculations and outputs.
As far as the application goes, we will be adding your name and any other credits
necessary along with a reference to your documentation on the model to the About page in
the application. The work of putting together and delivering this application is also being
conducted under the recently formed John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and
Synthesis (http://powelicenter.usgs.gOV/), and we're prepping some pages there that will
showcase the this (and all the people involved) as a "rapid response" project, a new type of
activity being conducted through the Center. We're actually quite excited about the future
implications of this work on other projects that have similar although less emergent needs.
<.----<.----<.{{
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
20f4
9/27/20102:08 PM
<.
009504
----<.
On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:

Bill,
This is excellent news that the colleagues at USGS have familiarity with R.
The specific calculations for the uncertainty analysis aside, I believe that the whole mass
balance estimation process will be much easier to control and maintain in R than in Excel.
I'll be happy to share my code with them, and to explain it to them, either in person (which
is always best), or over the phone. I'll be grateful for their peer review of it, and for their
critical evaluation that may improve it.
Please let them know that they are welcome to contact me, preferably via eMail, but
possibly also over the phone (see below), so that we may define the best course of action to
transfer the technology to them expeditiously.
I am now working on Rev. B of the report that we prepared for you, so that additional details
are included that may be helpful to the USGS colleagues. It will be this Rev. B that will go
through peer review internally within NIST.
In addition, you may have noticed that the bottom figure on page 9 (of Rev. A) is
superfluous, and indeed not meaningful (the same for the companion electronic file) -- the
top figure already shows the cumulative (total) oil remaining on the surface.
Any guidance you may like to provide about the negative values for VSD (daily increment of
oil remaining on the surface, which VS is the cumulative sum of), will be helpful.
Dr. Antonio Possolo is Chief of the Statistical Engineering

Division at NIST (U.S. Dept. of Commerce). He is a statistician
(PhD, Yale University) specializing in the evaluation of
measurement uncertainty, and in statistical models for
spatio-temporal phenomena. His previous experience includes
sixteen years in industry (Boeing, General Electric), and seven
years in academia (Princeton University, and University of
Washington in Seattle).
I still cannot find my name listed in relation with either the Plume Team or the FRTG at any
of the obvious places where other names are listed (for example, in the pages that are
maintained by DOl). My superiors would really like to see this corrected, and I thank you in
advance for taking the steps necessary to do so.
30f4
9/27/20102:08 PM
009505
Re: Oil Budget & R
Subject: Re: Oil Budget & R

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 201007:36:30 -0600
CC: Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
Thank you for yotJr engagement in this with us and the encouraging word. We are actually
quite excited about the payoff we should realize from this work for other USGS projects. The
R application server is actually something we've had in the back of our minds to add to the
scientific computing platform here in Denver in support of the Powell Center and other
initiatives with which we've been engaged. These also look to be some pretty good contacts
with NIST folks for future endeavors as well.
<:.(((<:<:<:--- -<:.(<:<:<:----<. <:<:
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<.( <<:<:----<.( <----<.( <<:<:
On Jun 29, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Mark K Sogge wrote:
! Thanks Sky.
We appreciate the team's great work, and your efforts to keep us updated and engaged. I
know this is not a simple task (though you make it seem so for us), especially as it keeps shifting around a
bit underneath you. But I am confident this will be an excellent tool.
Mark
i\
Mark Sogge
. Deputy Chair, NIC Flow Rate Technical Group
i Chief of Staff, USGS Western Region
2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, p.z 86001
I
'1
mark sogge@usgs.gov
I
~
I
I
i
From:
To:
Sky Bristol <sbristoJ@usgs.gov>

Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge , Mark Miler <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
Cc:
Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>
Date:
06/291201008:07 AM
I -------------------------------------------------------------------
!I Greetings,
I As I indicate in the forwarded note, we are working as expeditiously as possible to get
lof4
9/27/20102:08 PM
009506
Re: Oil Budget & R
the engineering all in place to support the new R program model for the oil budget
tool. The inputs and outputs are still pretty much the same variables, so much of the
application will remain the same. The parts that will change are the ability for anyone
other than the science support team familiar with R being able to change the model in
any way, and the spreadsheet output will probably not be possible under this model.
David Mack and the team at FORT have this well in hand, and we'll hopefully have
something ready later today or early tomorrow for review.
current status through your liaison with folks at the NIC and other important
stakeholders.
Thank you.
<.----<.----<.<:<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<.
----<.

Date: June 29, 20107:00:57 AM MDT
To: IIpossolo, Antonio <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Cc: Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>, "Espina, Pedro I." <pedro.espina@nist.gov>,
David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Su bject: Re: Oil Budget & R
ll
Thank you, Antonio. We look forward to working with you on this. David Mack and Tim
Kern from the Fort Collins Science Center have the engineering lead on the
Web-based data entry/maintenance and reporting application. They are working on
replacing the simple calculation model for the oil budget that was contained in a set of
online-configurable formulas and variables to the R program model. We've had
experience with this in the past on an invasive species modeling system, and they are
working to set up the necessary application server components to run the R program
in the most efficient manner possible.
David or Tim will be contacting you today to get a copy of the code and work throug h
some details. We're going to work this into a versioning system (Subversion) so that
the actual calculating model can be maintained as a component in conjunction with
the data entry and reporting application. From the sample output files that Bill
forwarded, it looks like the basic output variables are pretty much the same, so the
reporting application should not need to change (good for getting this thing delivered
to the Coast Guard soonest). However, we have also heard a little bit about possibly
modifying the input parameters to introduce more granularity on collection methods,
so we'll have to go into this with the expectation that we may need to modify and
version the model a bit over time as requirements evolve.
20f4
9/27/20102:08 PM
Re: Oil Budget & R
009507
Any guidance you may like to provide about the negative values for VSD (daily
increment of oil remaining on the surface, which VS is the cumulative sum of), will be
helpful.
Dr. Antonio Possolo is Chief of the Statistical Engineering

Division at NIST (U.S. Dept. of Commerce). He is a statistician
(PhD, Yale University) specializing in the evaluation of
measurement uncertainty, and in statistical models for
spatio-temporal phenomena. His previous experience includes
sixteen years in industry (Boeing, General Electric). and seven
years in academia (Princeton University, and University of
Washington in Seattle).
I still cannot find my name listed in relation with either the Plume Team or the FRTG at
any of the obvious places where other names are listed (for example, in the pages that
are maintained by 001). My superiors would really like to see this corrected, and I
thank you in advance for taking the steps necessary to do so.
Best regards,
- Antonio
- Antonio Possolo, PhD -- Chief
Statistical Engineering Division
National Institute of Standards & Technology
4of4
9/27/20102:08 PM
009508

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 201009:55:36 -0400
CC: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>. Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller
Sky, I echo Mark's comments. I've shared the tool with all CG folks that enter the room. There
was even a photographer in the room the other day and we took pictures with the tool
highlighted front and center. Will pass on the article when it comes out. I've been asked if
there is a "product" that we can provide for ADM Allen and RDML Neffenger. I've indicated that
we would be happy to provide an overview of the tool. Not sure if a briefing will happen because
of their schedules but if so, I'll be in touch
CG has also indicated that they see opportunities to use the tool for future needs. I always
remind them that this tool is using assumptions based solely on the DWH spill and revisions for
other efforts will require appropriate updates.
Keep up the good work
Reston, VA 20192
fax
mgarcia@usgs.gov
-----Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI wrote: ----To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>

From: Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI
Date: 06/29/2010 09:30AM
cc: Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>, Martha
Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>
Thanks Sky. We appreciate the team's great work, and your efforts to keep us updated and
. engaged. I know this is not a simple task (though you make it seem so for us), especially as it
keeps shifting around a bit underneath you. But I am confident this will be an excellent tool.
Mark
Mark Sogge
mark_sogge@usgs.gov
10fS
9/27/20102:08 PM
009509
From:
To:

Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller
<mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
Cc:
Kevin Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>
Date~
06/29/2010 08: 07 AM
Greetings,
As 1 indicate in the forwarded note, we are working as expeditiously as possible
to get the engineering all in place to support the new R program model for the oil
budget tool. The inputs and outputs are still pretty much'the same variables, so
much of the application will remain the same. The parts that will change are the
ability for anyone other than the science support team familiar with R being able
to change the model in any way, and the spreadsheet output will probably not
be possible under this model. David Mack and the team at FORT have this well in
hand, and we'll hopefully have something ready later today or early tomorrow
for review.
We do want to get this turned over to the Coast Guard ASAP, but as Martha said
in a previous note, we want to get them the right tool. Please help us in
communicating the current status through your liaison with folks at the NIC and
other important stakeholders.
Thank you.
<.< <"'N"''''<.( < ",,,,,,,,,,,,<.( <
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
< .( < < <"'NNN< .( < < < ,,",',ny,,", < .( < < <
From: Sky Bristol < sbristol@usgs.gov >

Date: June 29, 2010 7:00:57 AM MDT
To: "Possolo, Antonio" < antonio.possolo@nist.gov >
Cc: Bill Lehr < Bill. Lehr@noaa.gov > ,"Espina, Pedro 1." <
pedro.espina@nist.gov >, David Mack < mackd@usgs.gov >, Tim Kern <
kernt@usgs.gov >
Subject: Re: Oil Budget &. R
Thank you, Antonio. We look forward to working with you on this. David Mack
and Tim Kern from the Fort Collins Science Center have the engineering lead on
the Web-based data entry/maintenance and reporting application. They are
working on replacing the simple calculation model for the oil budget that was
contained in a set of online-configurable formulas and variables to the R program
20fS
9/27/20102:08 PM
009510
model. We've had experience with this in the past on an invasive species
modeling system, and they are working to set up the necessary application
server components to run the R program in" the most efficient manner possible.
David or Tim will be contacting you today to get a copy of the code and work
through some details. We're going to work this into a versioning system
(Subversion) so that the actual calculating model can be maintained as a
component in conjunction with the data entry and reporting application. From
the sample output files that Bill forwarded, it looks like the basic output variables
are pretty much the same, so the reporting application should not need to
change (good for getting this thing delivered to the Coast Guard soonest).
However, we have also heard a little bit about possibly modifying the input
parameters to introduce more granularity on collection methods( so we'll have to
go into this with the expectation that we may need to modify and version the
model a bit over time as requirements evolve.
One other difference I see is that the initial decision by the small science support
team put together to work on this application recommended using only the low
and high estimate scenarios, dropping the mean for now. We'll need to validate
that this is what the Coast Guard wants, but that may require some tweaks to
optimize the R program for only the necessary calculations and outputs.
As far as the application goes, we will be adding your name and any other
credits necessary along with a reference to your documentation on the model to
the About page in the application. The work of putting together and delivering
this application is also being conducted under the recently formed John Wesley
Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis ( http://powellcenter.usgs.gov/ ), and
we're prepping some pages there that will showcase the this (and all the people
involved) as a "rapid response" project, a new type of activity being conducted
through the Center. We're actually quite excited about the future implications of
this work on other projects that have similar although less emergent needs.
<. < <

< .( < < <
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
IV IV IV IV
<<<
IV IV IV IV
IV IV IV IV
<
.( < < <
< .( < < <
On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
Bill,
This is excellent news that the colleagues at USGS have familiarity with R.
The specific calculations for the uncertainty analysis aside, I believe that the
wl10le mass balance estimation process will be much easier to control and
maintain in R than in Excel.
30f5
9/27/20102:08 PM
50f5
009511
9/27/20102:08 PM
Oil Budget Tool Status and a Question
009512
Subject: Oil Budget Tool Status and a Question

From: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:09:20 -0600
To: Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
cc: "McElroy, Amy LT' <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>;
Peter CDR Hoffman <Peter.M.Hoffman@uscg.mil>, "O'Brien, Sean CDR"
<Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>,
Bill. Leh r@noaa.gov
On Friday June 25 the USGS released the Oil Budget application to production (https:l/my.usgs.gov
10ilBudget). This application allows authorized users to enter and update daily field collected values
(oil burned, oil collected, dispersants used), as well as 43 time-sensitive values and formulas for a
number of variables. The variables are used to generate summary statistics and graphs based on the
daily field collected values. The system also allows authorized users to build Scenarios based in input
variables. Users can add new variables and formulas, and use these to generate summary statistics and
charts that show up on the Executive Summary (front page) in real time. The first two scenarios -low
flow, maximum removal and high flow, minimum removal- were enabled for this initial release, with
the idea that scientists could add more scenarios as required. The production version also included
DOl-compliant security protocols, user-reviewable audit logs, User Help screens, and full application
and data replication.
On Monday June 28 the staff reviewing the outputs requested more time to review the current
formulas involved in the summary generation. There was some concern that these formulas were not
robust enough to generate appropriate summary statistics. Due to concerns about the background
formulas, we held off opening up access to the application to Coast Guard users.
On Tuesday June 29 NOAA staff suggested that the application embed R-based statistical modeling
instead of relatively simple formulas. Throughout Tuesday USGS and NOAA staff worked to get the R
program (supplied by Dr. Antonio Possolo at NIST) generalized enough to accommodate the nuance of
the data in the system. While this was going on, USGS support staff migrated the application to a
server cluster that was build for R-dependant Web Applications.
Late today, Wednesday June 30, we hope to have a beta release of the revised application. At that
point we plan to work with NOAA and USGS staff to ensure that this approach, and the visualizations
generated from them, are correct. Once this approach is confrrmed, we will update the User Help and
modify the audit logging to reflect the changes in the application.
One question remains: At what point do we open the application up for Coast Guard staff to update
the daily field collected values? While it makes sense to limit Readers to just staff working on the data
presentation (the model outputs), perhaps we can start working with data input staff now, to make sure
they are not going to encounter any input issues. This would be done parallel to the deployment of the
revised application, using User Support staff.
Thanks for your time.
Tim Kern

lof2
9/27/20102:09 PM
Oil Budget Tool Status and a Question
009513

2of2
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009514
FW: Request for NOAA input -- Q&A#3532 and 3534 re: Clearingho ...
Subject: FW: Req uest for NOAA input -- Q&A#3532 and 3534 re: Clearing house for
Science & Research
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:35:51 -0700
To: "Mark.W.Miller@NOAA.GOV' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Mark, your thoughts?
----From: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR

To: Brown, Baron CDR; Nakama, Robert LCDR
Cc: Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDRi Watson, Elizabeth
LCDR
Subject: Request for NOAA input -- Q&A#3532 and 3534 re: Clearinghouse for
Science & Research
Dear IASG,
Respectfully request NOAA (or other agency) input for Qs 3532 and 3534.
Please advise at your earliest convenience if I have misdirected these Qs and I
will seek input from another NIC division.
Our deadline is 1400 on Tuesday, 6JULI0. If I could obtain your input a few
hours prior to that deadline, it would be most appreciated.
Thank you and enjoy your afternoon.
v/r,
Elizabeth Watson
NIC-HQ
Legislative Affairs
-----Original Message----From: Offutt, Todd CDR

To: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Brown, Baron CDR; Jenkins, Shannon Mr.; Kuebler, Charles LCDR
Subject: Q&A#3532-3535 re: Clearinghouse for Science & Research
Liz,
PIs follow-up w/ NOAA in the IASSG, per CDR Miller's recommendation. r/TJO
#3532: Is there an overall clearinghouse for science and/or research ideas (both
formally documented and verbal ideas)?
#3534: Is this information being routed in a timely manner to the decisionmakers?
10f3
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009515
-----Original Message----From: Miller, Eric CDR

To: Jenkins, Shannon Mr.i Offutt, Todd CDR
Cc: Watson, Elizabeth LCDRi Kuebler, Charles LCDRi Brown, Baron CDR; Lally,
Joseph LCDR; Lehto, Jason LCDR; Kauffman, Meridena LCDR
Subject: RE: BY 6 JULY: Q&A#3532-3534
Good morning,
CG-533 will answer Q&A #3533 regarding the ICCOPR involvement (actually, a lack
thereof). The other two questions however will require NIC coordination to
answer as they require a broader reach for info either through the interagencies
or by the UAC. NOAA may also be a good source of info as they be tracking some
of the research being organized by universities.
r/
Eric J. Miller, Commander, USCG
Commandant (CG-5333)
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 2nd St SW STOP 7363
Washington, DC 20593-7363
-----Original Message----From: Jenkins, Shannon Mr.

To: Offutt, Todd CDR; Miller, Eric CDR
Cc: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDRi Brown, Baron CDR
Subject: RE: BY 6 JULY: Q&A#3532-3534
I saw these before, but I'm not sure that they are mine to answer. And I don't
think
are NIC Q's to answer either. I. think they may be CG-533's or a
cowbination of 533 and 926. I wasn't part of the referenced meeting on the
23rd. Eric, do you participate in the discussion referenced in the background
paragraph? If not, then I need some more info on these questions. Specifically,
what do they mean by an "overall clearing house" in #3532, and what constitutes
"decision makers" in #3534?
Shannon
To: Jenkins, Shannon Mr.
Cc: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Brown, Baron CDR
Subject: BY 6 JULY: Q&A#3532-3534
Shannon,
Appreciate if you could take #3532 and #3534 (below) given the Qs you're already
doing, and our discussions this AM wi Bill Grawe on the NSF, et.al. r/TJO
CDR Todd Offutt
Intergov't & Legislative Affairs
NIC-DC
-----Original Message-----
20f3
9/27/20102:09 PM
009516
From: Jones, Melinda

To:
Subject: FOR ROUTINE ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3532-3534
Sirs/Ma'am,
Edith Holleman, Professional Staff, House Committee on Science & Technology,
Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee (Majority) has requested responses to
the below questions.
Background:
During the 23 June ICCOPR Briefing for Science and Technology senior
professional staff, staff noted that they believed there was significant
roadblock to non-federal agency workers voicing their ideas and concerns
regarding the Gulf spill based on their professional expertise (academia,
industry, etc.).
Example given was people who were concerned about the recent
amounts of methane in the water in the Gulf long before it was determined what
the source was.
TIMELINE: No later than 1400, 6 July

estimated ETA.
ASSIGNMENTS:
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3532: Is there an overall clearinghouse for science and/or research
ideas (both formally documented and verbal ideas)?
(NIC-HQ) Q&A '3533: If so, what role, if any does the Interagency Coordination
Center for Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR) play in this process?
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3534: Is this information being routed in a timely manner to the
decision-makers?
\Qlndex.2010.xlsm>
v/r,
Melinda E. Jones
U. S. Coast Guard
.mil
30f3
9/27/20102:09 PM
009517
Re: Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget Tool
Subject: Re: Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget Tool

Date: Thu, 01 Jul2010 06:31:22 -0400
To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Antonio Possolo
<antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
CC: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Jeffrey Allen
<allenj@usgs.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>
Anytime between 1:30 to 4 pm eastern is good for me
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.qov
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.B1ackBerry.net)
Original Message ----From: Sky Bristol [sbristol@usgs.govl

Sent: 07/01/2010 04:29 AM CST
To: Martha Garcia; Mark 80gge; Mark Miller <mark.w.mi1Ier@noaa.gov>; Bill Lehr
<Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>; Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.oov>
Cc: Tim Kern; David Mack; Jeffrey Allen; Kevin Gallagher
Subject: Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget Tool
The development team has worked through the new model in R, adapting the
calculations for the dynamically entered data from the NIC, and set the
application up to run through the newly provided scenarios from Antonio Possolo
(NIST). There are still a few concerns with how the low, mean, and high scenarios
are presented through the charts and graphs of the executive summary and
reporting applicat'ion, and we need to schedule a time at the earliest convenience
to go over the new application with all or most of you to make sure we have this
set up to present what we want for the Coast Guard. We are trying to get to the
stated objective of being able to effectively show the bounds of the problem
while making sure that the visible output demonstrates reasonable combinations of
events.
Could you all please respond with times available for a conference call and WebEx
today? Tim Kern and the group at Fort Collins will set up the details and show
the application for your review and input. I'm on a plane between 8 and 1 (MDT)
today, but I'm nonessential.
Thank you, and we look forward to getting this finalized and turned over for
operation.
<. ( ( ----<. ( ( ----<. ( ( (<

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
1
<. (( ----<. (( ----<. (( (<
1 of2
9/27/20102:09 PM
20f2.
009518
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009519
Re: FW: Request for NOAA input -- Q&A#3532 and 3534 re: Cleari. ..
Subject: Re: FW: Request for NOAA input -- Q&A#3532 and 3534 re: Clearinghouse for
Science & Research
From: Cynthia Decker <Cynthia.Decker@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:54:50 -0400
Yes! wiil look into it this afternoon.
Interestingly! I saw a
on PBS news
hour last night with USF scientists where a modeler was complaining that there was
no
where he could find in one place all the data collected so far available
to anyone who wanted it.
I imagine this is a clearance, QA/QC issue to some
extent but maybe just a lack of coordination among the agencies as well.
I'll see
what I can find out. This may be a good
for the Science Box. Maybe we
can chat before I go
off, however.
Cynthia,
Nathalie looked into this earlier and I think she found several websites aimed
at housing data. I think NOAA has a plan for this too. Can you look into this?
Mark
! Brown, Baron CDR wrote:
li Mark,
~ j
your thoughts?
CDR Baron Brown! USCG
NIC-IASG
-i;,
I;
1
~
1t
!\ 1;
j j
Ii
1!
-----Original Message----From: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:24 PM
To: Brown, Baron CDR: Nakama, Robert LCDR
Cc: Offutt! Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Watson,
Elizabeth LCDR
Subject: Request for NOAA input -- Q&A#3532 and 3534 re: Clearinghouse for
Science & Research
Dear IASG,
I'
II
Respectfully request NOAA (or other agency) input for Qs 3532 and 3534. Please
advise at your earliest convenience if I have misdirected these Qs and I will
seek input from another NIC division.
,I,'II
!
Our deadline is 1400 on Tuesday, 6JUL10.

If I could obtain your input a few
hours prior to that deadline, it would be most appreciated.
Ij
, !
Thank you and enjoy your afternoon.
Vir,
I
I
Elizabeth Watson
-----Original Message----From: Offutt, Todd CDR Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 1:38 PM
To: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Brown, Baron CDR; Jenkins, Shannon Mr.: Kuebler, Charles LCDR
1!
Iof4
9/27/20102:09 PM
009520
Re: FW: Request for NOAA input -- Q&A#3532 and 3534 re: Cleari...
!i Subject:
;
!I
Q&A#3532-3535 re: Clearinghouse for Science & Research
I,
\ 1 Liz,
!: iPls
~-
follow-up wi NOAA in the IASSG, per CDR Miller's recommendation. r/TJO
!i #3532: Is there an overall clearinghouse for

II (both formally documented and verbal ideas)?
II
It
IIt,
science and/or research ideas

#3534: Is this information being
II routed in a timely manner to the decision-makers?
i, ,f -----Original
Message----! r From: Miller, Eric CDR Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 8:54 AM
I i To: Jenkins, Shannon Mr.; Offutt, Todd CDR
11 Cc: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Brown, Baron CDR; Lally,
f i Joseph LCDR; Lehto, Jason LCDRi Kauffman, Meridena LCDR
Ii Subject: RE: BY 6 JULY: Q&A#3532-3534
~ ~
II Good
will answer Q&A #3533 regarding the ICCOPR involvement (actually, a

"lack thereof). The other two questions however will require NIC coordination
!I to answer as they require a broader reach for info either through the
Ii interagencies or by the UAC. NOAA may also be a good source of info as they
I!be tracking some of the research being organized by universities.
ri
II
~
I. i'
! !
!f
I,
,I
I l
f f
I[
!r
I!
II
I!
~
It
!!
!!
f!
J. Miller, Commander, USCG

I [Commandant (CG-5333)
I I, U. S. Coast Guard
; I 2100 2nd St SW STOP 7363
I I Washington, DC 20593-7363
:i
, I
!; !!Eric
r/
II
I'
morning,
I!
I I CG-533
Ii
IiI!
'i
{
,I
:;
!r
I i -----Original
I!'I;
Message----Jenkins, Shannon Mr. Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 9:05 PM

i i To: Offutt, Todd CDR; Miller, Eric CDR
1.\1 Cc: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Brown, Baron CDR
! Subject: RE: BY 6 JULY: Q&A#3532-3534
l I From:
1 '
Ii
I!
I
','
I saw these before, but I'm not sure that they are mine to answer. And I
don't think they are NIC Q's to answer either. I think they may be CG-533's
!Ior a combination of 533 and 926. I wasn't part of the referenced meeting on
I the 23rd. Eric, do you participate in the discussion referenced in the
~f background paragraph?
If not, then I need some more info on these questions.
! Specifically, what do they mean by an "overall clearing house" in #3532, and
[what constitutes "decision makers" in 13534?
. !
!
Ii
It
i,
II
I !
I !
1
II
;, Shannon
II
i -----Original Message----! i From: Offutt, Todd CDR Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 4:24 PM
I To: Jenkins, Shannon Mr.
! Cc: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Brown, Baron CDR
II Subject: BY 6 JULY: Q&AI3532-3534
IiI Shannon,
i Appreciate if you could take 13532 and #3534 (below) given the Qs you're
already doing, and our discussions this AM w/ Bill Grawe on the NSF, et.al.
r/TJO
CDR Todd Offutt

& Legislative Affairs
!1 Intergov't
20f4
9/27/20102:09 PM
009521
Re: FW: Request for NOAAjnput -- Q&A#3532 and 3534 re: Cleari...
II
NIC-DC
III!
II 202-372-1738
IIi
Ii!i!
~
;j
!i
Message----Melinda
Fr~m: J~nes:
To. SubJect. FOR ROUTINE ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3532-3534
,III
~ f
!I Sirs/Ma' am,
i I Edith Holleman, Professional Staff, House Committee on Science & Technology,

II Invest
ions and Oversight Subcommittee (Majority) has requested responses
to the below questions. Background: During the 23 June ICCOPR Briefing for
I! Science and Technology senior professional staff, staff noted that they
j ! believed there was significant roadblock to non-federal agency workers voicing
I I their ideas and concerns regarding the Gulf spill based on their professional
I expertise (academia l industry, etc.). Example, given was pe~ple who were
i I concerned about the recent amounts of methane In the water In the Gulf long
I I before it was determined what the source was.
,!
~
~
1
f
!
I!
"I
!
1
I
t!
I!

II
jj
I f the requested deadline' cannot be me't; please provide the reason and your
li
il
,\
II
!I
11
1 ;
j i ASSIGNMENTS:
iI
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3532: Is there an overall clearinghouse for science and/or

and verbal ideas)? (NIC-HQ) Q&A
Interagency Coordination Center for
jlOil Pollution Research (ICCOPR) play in this process? (NIC-HQ) Q&A #3534: Is
.I ,! this information being routed in a timely manner to the decision-makers?
: I Database Access: <file:///\\hgs-nas-t-001\CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearings\Database
I! research ideas (both formally documented

i I #3533: If so, what role, if any does the
II~ l --""'=:=::.:.::..:...:.=-=-:...:..:.:=~
I!
II!
.I
II
I!
II
I'
,!
E. Jones
.
I Informal Inquiries Manager
l i External Coordination Division (CG-823)
j I Office of Budget and Programs (CG-82)
!! u. S. Coast Guard
III
i!
I! vIr,
~
PI Melinda
II
5J
1
i
I
!f
l!
11
II
I
1
!.
1i
*********************************************
Cynthia J. Decker, Ph.D

Executive Director
NOAA Science Advisory Board
SSMC3, Room 11230
1315 East-West HWy.
Email:
3 of4
g.yl}!hJ.?:.!.::i~.f.!i.:...._:r.:~!:l.Q..9.-=.g~.!
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009522
Re: FW: Request for NOAA input -- Q&A#3532 and 3534 re: Cleari...
*********************************************
40f4
9/27/20102:09 PM
009523

From: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 201008:41:24 -0600
CC: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, David
Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Jeffrey Allen <allenj@usgs.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher
<kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
All,
I've set up a WebEx and Conference Call at 2pm EDT/1pm CDT/12pm MDT to go over the proposed changes to
the Oil Budget app. If you are unable to access Web Ex, I will email some screen shots so you can follow along.
Details:
Conference Number: (641) 715-3300 and use Access Code: 912176#
WebEx: https:!Lusgs.webex.com/usgs/j.php?ED=140425737&UID=1145418712&RT=MiM2
Tim Kern
From:
To:
Martha N GarcialBRD/USGSIDOI
Sky BristoVRGIO/USGSIDOI@USGS. Mark K SoggeIDOIUSGS/DOI@USGS. "Mark Miler" <mark.w .miller@noaa.gov>, "Bill Lehr"
<Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>. "Antonio Possolo" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Cc:
Tim KernlBRDIUSGS/DOI@USGS. David MackIBRD/CONT/USGSIDOI@USGS, Jeffrey AllenIBRD/CONTIUSGS/DOI@USGS, Kevin T
Gallagher/GlOlUSGSIDO I@USGS
Date:
07/011201004:31 PM
Anytime between 1:30 to 4 pm easte4n is good for me

Senio4 Advisor for Biology
301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov
----- Original Message ----From: Sky Bristol [sbristol@usgs.gov]

Sent: 07/01/2010 04:29 AM CST
To: Martha Garcia; Mark Sogge; Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>; Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>; Antonio
Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
lof2
9/27/20102:09 PM
009524
Cc: Tim Kern; David Mack; Jeffrey Allen; Kevin Gallagher

The development team has worked through the new model in R, adapting the calculations for the dynamically
entered data from the NIC, and set the application up to run through the newly provided scenarios from
Antonio Possolo (NIST). There are still a few concerns with how the low, mean, and high scenarios are
presented through the charts and graphs of the executive summary and reporting application, and we need to
schedule a time at the earliest convenience to go over the new application with all or most of you to make
sure we have this set up to present what we want for the Coast Guard. We are trying to get to the stated
objective of being able to effectively show the bounds of the problem while making sure that the visible
output demonstrates reasonable combinations of events.
Could you all please respond with times available for a conference call and WebEx today? Tim Kern and the
group at Fort Collins will set up the details and show the application for your review and input. I'm on a
plane between 8 and I (MDT) today, but I'm nonessential.
Thank you, and we look forward to getting this finalized and turned over for operation.
<. ( ----<. ( ----<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
1
(<----<. ( ( ----<.
2 of2
9/27/20102:09 PM
009525
FW: Fol\ow up -- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): ...
Subject: FW: Follow up -- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:22:55 -0700
To: "Mark.W.Miller@NOAA.GOY' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Mark,
Didn't you already answer this?
NIC-IASG
Message----From: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR

Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 2:39 PM
To: Brown, Baron CDR: Nakama, Robert LCDR
Cc: Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Watson, Elizabeth
LCDR
Subject: Follow up
for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&Aw3583
Dear Commanders,
Good afternoon!
today.
Just following up on the response to this Q.
Our deadline is
Many thanks and vir,

Elizabeth Watson
NIC,HQ
lative Affairs
Message----From: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR

Sent:
June 29, 2010 8:36 PM
Cc: Offutt, Todd CDR: Moland, Mark CDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Watson, Elizabeth
LCDR
Subject: For action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&Aw3583
: High
Dear Commanders,
Respectfully request NOAA input for NIC response to the question, below.
Please advise at your earliest convenience if this should be re-directed to
another NIC division for response.
Vir,
Elizabeth Watson
NIC-HQ
of2
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009526
FW: Follow up -- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): ...

Sent:
June 29, 2010 5:21 PM
To: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit: HQS-DG-LST-CG DCO-Incident Support Team:
Cc: Jones, Melinda; Dickey, Laura CDR: Ensley, Kristopher LT: Langum, Scott CDR:
Mason, Robert: McLaughlin/ Daniel CDR: Morrison/ Stephanie LCDR; Warren, Robert
CDR; Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn CDR: St. John, Jordan;
Wright, Howard CDR; Derian, Matthew LT; Lauzon, Michelle CTR; Naff, Beth LCDR;
Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPT: Didominicus, Lou: Re, Joseph CAPT:
Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Goad, Michael: Reese, Tameki'a: Smith, Beverly; Venckus,
Steve: Carpenter, Sandra: Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger; Amidon, Dale;
Armstrong, Richard LT; Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin LT; Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn,
Patrick CAPT; Hallock, Johnene LT; Harker, Thomas CDR: Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR;
Hudson, Samuel LT: Imahori, John CDR: Keffer, Benjamin LT: Lomba, Manuel LCDR:
Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson, Robert CAPT:
Warney,
; Yacobi, James;
Jon CDR: HQS-DG-lst-CG-821: HQS-DGIst-CG-822: Coe, Shannah CTR: Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela: Manzi,
Kathryn: Martyn, David CTR: McDaniel, Jack CTR: Quigley, William CTR; Smith,
Derek LCDR; hqs-dg-lst-dcms-82: Medina, Lizette: Montgomery, Patrick LT:
Thompson, Matthew LCDR: Grawe, William; Guinee, Paul; Thurber, Margaret; Thuring,
Allen: Camp, Claudia CDR: Thomas, Feba
Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
Alexander
Rep. Tom Price has requested a response to the below question.

If the requested deadline cannot be met: please provide the reason and your
ASSIGNMENTS:
(NIC-HQ) Q&A #3583: Request to know the Coast Guard/NOAA's anticipated oil
trajectories for the East Coast if/when the oil hits the loop current/gulfstream.
\QIndex.2010.xlsm>
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
U. S. Coast Guard
2of2
9/27/20102:09 PM
009527
Re: FW: Follow up -- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ) ...
Subject: Re: FW: Follow up -- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
From: Joe Inslee <Joe.lnslee@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:04:24 -0400
CC: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
MarkAs you know we continue to
and get the long term out. So in the meantime I
would go with your response for now.
-Joe
Is there anything I can say besides -
I
i
! NOAA
is investigating the long term movement of oil from the Deepwater Horizon
i (MC252) Incident.
,i Mark
!I
i \Brown,
Baron CDR wrote:
II Mark,
i I
It
I Didn't
11
! i CDR
you already answer this?
Baron Brown, USCG
I! NIC-IASG
I
i
I!
I 1
!Itt!I
. .
1 Message----!l ----- 0 rlglna
I l From: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 2:39 PM
Ij Cc: Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Watson,
! j Elizabeth LCDR
for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
I, I, Subject: Follow up
,1 !'
II
1!
Ii
I!Ii
, I
.~ J
ii
11 Dear Commanders,
,1
11 Good afternoon!
i;
i!
! i Many
1
Our deadline is
today.
thanks and vir,
kNIC-HQ
Elizabeth Watson
III
1,
Legislative Affairs
.~
-----Original Message----From: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 8:36 PM
if To: Brown, Baron CDR; Nakama, Robert LCDR
11 Cc: Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Watson,
Elizabeth LCDR
1 Subject: For action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
Importance: High
it
11
Ij
Ii
II
j
j
;
Dear Commanders,
i Respectfully request NOAA input for NIC response to the question, below.
I
10f3
9/27/20102:09 PM
009528
II

Itanother NIC division for response.
11
IIv/r,
II
It
II! .
II Elizabeth
Watson
NIC-HQ
Legislative Affairs (202)372-1714
t 1 (541) 543-7634
,I
! ,
Ij
!, II
II -----Original
I!
; I
Message----From: Jones, Melinda Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:21 PM

l!! To: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit; HQS-DG-LST-CG DCO-Incident Support
l t Team; Offutt, Todd CDR: Moland, Mark CDR; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
11 Cc: Jones, Melinda; Dickey, Laura CDR: Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott
CDR; Mason, Robert: McLaughlin, Daniel CDR; Morrison, Stephanie LCDR: Warren,
:1 Robert CDR: Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT: Smith, Glynn CDR; St. John,
! Jordan; Wright, Howard CDR: Derian, Matthew LTi Lauzon, Michelle CTR; Naff,
Beth LCDR; Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPT; Didominicus, Lou; Re,
i [ Joseph CAPT; Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Goad, Michael; Reese, Tamekia; Smith,
l i Beverly; Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger;
II Amidon, Dale; Armstrong, Richard LT; Bromell, Robert; Covert, Justin LT;
it Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn, Patrick CAPT; Hallock, Johnene LT; Harker, Thomas CDR;
;} Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR; Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR; Keffer,
amin LT; Lomba, Manuel LCDR; Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR; Rodriguez,
IjPaul LCDR; Thompson, Robert CAPT; Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Hickey, Jon
it CDR; HQS-DG-Ist-CG-821; HQS-DG-lst-CG-822; Coe, Shannah CTR; Cunningham,
!!Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela; Manzi, Kathryn; Martyn, David CTR; McDaniel, Jack
1\ CTR; Quigley, William CTR: Smith, Derek LCDR; hqs-dg-Ist-dcms-82; Medina,
I! Lizette; Montgomery, Patrick LT; Thompson, Matthew LCDR: Grawe, William;
11 Guinee, Paul; Thurber, Margaret; Thuring, Allen; Camp, Claudia CDR; Thomas,
l! Feba
11 Subject: FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
II Importance: High
!;
,<
!'
I
II
II
!
I!
Rep. Tom Price has requested a response to the below
question.
I If the requested deadline cannot be met: please provide

I. estimated ETA. This will allow us to manage expectations.
!
jl
Database Access: <file:I//\\hgs-nas-t-001\CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearings\Database

\QIndex.2010.xlsm>
v/r,
! I.
dMelinda E. Jones
!I~I Informal Inquiries Manager
.. External Coordination Division (CG-823)
I Office of Budget and Programs (CG-82)
2of3
,I
! ,
! \
l!
!1
Ii
!
!!
\!
I,
I!
I!
II
trajectories for the East Coast if/when the oil hits the loop
current/gulfstream.
,I
II
i I ASSIGNMENTS:
II
II
, I
jJ
the reason and your I !
II
II
II
'I
i!I'
11
i' Alexander
Sirs/Ma' am,
Shively,
f!
I
I
I
i
I
9/27/20102:09 PM
009529
11 u.
S. Coast Guard
!
!, I
'
Joe Inslee
Policy/Outreach Assistant
Assessment and Restoration Division
1305 East-West Highway SSMC 4, Rm. 10219
Silver Spring, MD 20910 Office
300
9/27/20102:09 PM
009530
RE: FW: Follow up -- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ) ...
Subject: RE: FW: Follow up -- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
From: "Watson, Elizabeth LCDR" <Elizabeth.A.Watson@uscg.mil>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:15:37 -0400
CC: "Watson, Elizabeth LCDR" <Elizabeth.A.Watson@uscg.mil>
Dear Mr. Miller,
Thank you for your email, sir!
Is that the answer to the Q?
document.
Just wanted to make sure before I populate the
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Watson
NIC-HQ
Legislative Affairs
-----Original Message----From: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

To: Brown, Baron CDR; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Subject: Re: FW: Follow up -- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
NOAA is investigating the long term movement of oil from the Deepwater
Horizon '(MC252) Incident.
Mark
Brown, Baron CDR wrote:
II Mark,
idn t you already answer this?
I
DR Baron Brown, USCG
[-----Original Message----!rrom: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR

I Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 2:39 PM
Cc: Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Watson,
Elizabeth LCDR
Subject: Follow up -- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
I
II
, Dear Commanders,
I Good
afternoon!
(today.
10f3
Our deadline is
f
9/27/20102:09 PM
009531
RE: FW: Follow up .- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ) ...
Many thanks and vir,

Elizabeth Watson
NIC-HQ
Legislative Affairs
(202) 372-1714
(541)543-7634
-----Original Message----From: Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc: Offutt, Todd CDR; Moland, Mark CDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Watson,
Elizabeth LCDR
Subject: For action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
Importance: High
Dear Commanders,
Respectfully request NOAA input for NIC response to the question, below.
another NIC division for response.
v /r,
Elizabeth Watson
NIC-HQ
Legislative Affairs

Cc: Jones, Melinda; Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Langum, Scott
CDRi Mason, Robert; McLaughlin, Daniel CDR; Morrison, Stephanie LCDR; Warren,
Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele; Cashin, Charles CAPT; Smith, Glynn CDR; St. John,
Jordan; Wright, Howard CDR; Derian, Matthew LT; Lauzon, Michelle CTR; Naff,
Beth LCDRi Palermo, Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPTi Didominicus, Lou; Re,
Joseph CAPTi Bouziane, Michele LCDRi Goad, Michael; Reese, Tamekia; Smith,
Beverly; Venckus, Steve; Carpenter, Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger;
Amidon, Dale; Armstrong, Richard LT; Bromell, Roberti Covert, Justin LT;
Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn, Patrick CAPTi Hallock, Johnene LTi Harker, Thomas CDR;
Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR; Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR; Keffer, Benjamin
LT; Lomba, Manuel LCDR; Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR; Rodriguez, Paul LCDRi
Thompson, Robert CAPTi Warney, Maplei Yacobi, James; Hickey, Jon CDR; HQS-DGIst-CG-821i HQS-DG-lst-CG-822i Coe, Shannah CTR; Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd,
Pamela; Manzi, Kathryn; Martyn, David CTR; McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William
CTR; Smith, Derek LCDR; hqs-dg-lst-dcms-82; Medina, Lizettei Montgomery,
Patrick LTi Thompson, Matthew LCDRi Grawe, William; Guinee, Paul; Thurber,
Margareti Thuring, Allen; Camp, Claudia CDR; Thomas, Feba
Importance: High
Sirs/Ma'am,
20f3
9/27/20102:09 PM
009532
RE: FW: Follow up -- for action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ) ...
Alexander Shively, Rep. Tom Price has

question.
a response to the below

ASSIGNMENTS:
ectories for the East Coast if/when the oil hits the loop
current/gulfstream.
Database Access: <file:///\\hgs-nas-t-Q01\CG-8\CG-82\CG-823\Hearings\Database
\QIndex.2010.xlsm>
vir,
Melinda E. Jones
U. S. Coast Guard
30f3
9/27/20102:09 PM
Oil Budget Calculator
009533
Subject: Oil Budget Calculator
From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:46:21 -0400
To: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Bill,
Could you call me when you get a chance? I would like you to help me understand
better what NIST did.
Mark
I of 1
9/27/20102:09 PM
009534
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 02:48:00 -0700
To: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
CC: Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>,
David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Jeffrey Allen <allenj@usgs.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher
On travel all day yesterday. Am interested in what happened on the conference
call.
Original Message ----From: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Date: Thursday, July I, 2010 7:41 am
Cc: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>,
David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Jeffrey Allen <allenj@usgs.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher
<kgallagher@usqs.gov>, Mark K Sogge , Mark Miller
j
1 All,
! I've
set up a WebEx and Conference Call at 2pm EDT/1pm CDT/12pm MDT to
1 go
! over
the proposed changes to the Oil Budget app. If you are unable to
I
I access
I
WebEx, I will email some screen shots so you can follow along.
! Details:
IConference
Number:
(641) 715-3300 and use Access Code: 912176#
; WebEx:
~
I Thanks
;
for your time.
II Tim
Kern
I USGS
Fort Collins Science Center

I 2150 Centre Ave, Building C
! Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118
(fax)
!
i
i
! From:
!Martha N Garcia/BRD/USGS/DOI
!To'
i
.
I Sky Bristol/RGIO/USGS/DOI@USGS,Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI@USGS,"Mark
,Miller" <mark.w.miller@noaa.qov>, "Bill Lehr" <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>,
i "Antonio Possolo" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
I;~~
Kern/BRD/USGS/DOI@USGS, David Mack/BRD/CONT/USGS/DOI@USGS, Jeffrey
Allen/BRD/CONT/USGS/DOI@USGS, Kevin T Gallagher/GIO/USGS/DOI@USGS

Date:
07/01/2010 04:31 AM
lof3
9/27/20102:09 PM
009535
Subject:
Anytime between 1:30 to 4 pm eastern is good for me

301 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov
Original Meisage ----From: Sky Bristol [sbristol@usgs.gov]

Sent: 07/01/2010 04:29 AM CST
To: Martha Garcia; Mark Sogge; Mark Millet <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>i
Bill
Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>i Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Cc: Tim Kern; David Mack; Jeffrey Alieni Kevin Gallagher
The development team has worked through the new model in R, adapting
the
calculations for the dynamically entered data from the NIC, and set
the
application up to run through the newly provided scenarios from
Antonio
Possolo (NIST). There are still a few concerns with how the low, mean,
and
high scenarios are presented through the charts and graphs of the
executive summary and reporting application, and we need to schedule a
time at the earliest convenience to go over the new application with
all
or most of you to make sure we have this set up to present what we
want
for the Coast Guard. We are trying to get to the stated objective of
being
able to effectively show the bounds of the problem while making sure
that
the visible output demonstrates reasonable combinations of events.
Could you all please respond with times available for a conference
call
and Web Ex today? Tim Kern and the group at Fort Collins will set up
the
details and show the application for your review and input. I'm on a
plane
between 8 and 1 (MDT) today, but I'm nonessential.
Thank you, and we look forward to getting this finalized and turned
over
for operation.
2of3
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009536
i <. (( (<----<. (( ----<. ((

~
j
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
1 <. (( (<----<. (( (<----<. (( (
CC: "Possolo, Antonio'; <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, "BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov"
<Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>,
Jeffrey Allen <al/enj@usgs.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Mark K
Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "Espina, Pedro
I." <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Sky, Just one clarification re: the 4th item
"One of the concerns raised yesterday is that Marcia McNutt and others have been
using
in the range of 1.2M bbl for remaining oil."
The use of the number is accurate as it represents the remaining oil based on the higher flow
rate. It will continue to be used until new data becomes avail to refine the flow rate.

u.s. Geological Survey

Reston, VA 20192
mgarcia@usgs.gov
-----Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov> wrote: ----To: "Possolo 1 Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>

Date: 07/02/2010 09:06AM
cc: "Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov" <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, Martha N
Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Jeffrey Allen
<allenj@usgs.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge
<mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "Espina, Pedro 1."
<pedro.espina@nist.gov>
In terms of decision points about the application:
- Martha Garcia and Mark Miller recommended that we get the Cast Guard folks
looking at the online application, inputting new daily variables since day 62,
and providing feedback and comments on what they would like to see. We'll be
doing this today by noon (Mountain).
- We settled on showing three graphs: cumulative oil disposition barrel chart,
cumulative released, and cumulative remaining (the latter two showing the
variability from low to high from the new calculations).
- We
that continued review by the FRTG and other scientists is nec~ssary
to explore and answer the questions posed in Antonio's message. For the
application, I feel that one outcome of this needs to be a review of the various
lof2
9/27/20lO 2:09 PM
009538
explanatory annotations we've already made about the calculated variables and we
need to make about the charts.
- One of the concerns raised yesterday is that Marcia McNutt and others have
been using figures in the range of 1.2M bbl for remaining oil. The mean in the
new calculation (based on 45,000 bbl/day discharge) is less than half that
number, with the high (based on 65,000 bbl/day discharge) still under 1M bbl
remaining oil. We (collectively between NOAA/NIST, USCG, USGS) need to make sure
we have a coherent explanation for this crude difference.
For this last bullet l we would like to provide direct access to the Web
application for science team folks as a way of reviewing the whole system that
will be turned over to the Coast Guard for their review today. Antonio has a
user account now, and we'll set one up for Bill. Who else should be given access
to review the online application?
Thank you.
<. ((----<. (( ----<. ((

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
((
On Jul 2, 2010, at 5:43 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Let me comment on just three issues related to what we discussed yesterday
during the teleconference between USGS-NOAA-NIST.

>
> (1) Where do the values of the rate constants (and associated uncertainties)
corne from? In particular, what measurements, either that are being made already,
or that could be made going forward, might improve the assessment of both those
values and uncertainties?
>
> (2) The rate constants that determine the volume discharged before and after
day 45 are main drivers of the values of all key output variables. Given that
different teams in the FRTG have produced estimates of these rates, I believe
that the associated uncertainties (for your rate constants kOl and k02) should
reflect the dispersion of these multiple estimates. Do they?
>
> (3) In each of the simulated scenarios that our uncertainty analysis is based
on, we are treating the rate constants as outcomes of independent random
variables. However, it seems conceivable that there should be correlations
between some of them (for example, first day evaporation and second day
evaporation). The introduction of correlations might prove influential upon the
results. How to estimate them brings us back to (1) above.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Antonio
>'
> - Antonio Possolo, PhD -- Chief
> Statistical Engineering Division
> Information Technology Laboratory
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
>
>
2of2
9/27/20102:09 PM
Re: RE: Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget Tool
009539
Subject: Re: RE: Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget Tool

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:25:54 -0700
To: "Possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
CC: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, David Mack
<mackd@usgs.gov>, Jeffrey Allen <allenj@usgs.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, "Espina, Pedro I."
<pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Antonio and everyone,
1)
Different rate constants come from different sources. For example, the
evaporation constants come from using the existing NOAA weathering model scaled
to this oil and surface oil samples with uncertainty bounds given by taking the
results of the Canadian model and the opinions of the team of experts into
consideration. I will revise and expand my previous report as soon as possible.
2)
The actual probability distribution for the flow estimates is, of course,
unknown. I took the reported flow bounds of the Plume Team as describing a two
sigma confidence interval as a reasonable guess but that may not be accurate. I
used the Plume flow values because that was the only group that estimated, using
the same technique, the leakage both before and after the riser cut.
3)
The first and second day evaporation constants are obviously dependent.
I suggested independent variable assumptions for the rate constants to simplify
the calculations and also because the correlations are probably not known in
general. This is a small error, I think, compared to the assumptions of spatial
and temporal independence for the rate constants. For example, evaporation is
highly dependent upon wind speed, as is surface dispersant effectiveness.
Bill Lehr
Original Message ----From: "Possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Date: Friday, July 2, 2010 4:43 am
Subject: RE: Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget Tool
To: "Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov" <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Cc: Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Jeffrey
Allen <allenj@usgs.gov>, Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>, Mark K 80gge
, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Sky Bristol
<sbristol@usgs.gov>, "Espina, Pedro I." <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
I Bill,
!Let me comment on just three issues related to what we discussed
I, yesterday during the teleconference between USGS-NOAA-NIST.
It uncertainties)
(1) Where do the values of the rate constants (and associated
come from? In particular, what measurements, either
1 that are being made already, or that could be made going forward,
i might
improve the assessment of both those values and uncertainties?
I (2)
The rate constants that determine the volume discharged before and
; after day 45 are main drivers of the values of all key output
'Ii variables. Given that different teams in the FRTG have produced
. estimates of these rates, I believe that the associated uncertainties
i (for your rate constants k01 and k02) should reflect the dispersion of
these multiple estimates. Do they?
(3) In each of the simulated scenarios that our uncertainty analysis
lof2
9127/20102:09 PM
Re: RE: Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget Tool
009540
is based on, we are treating the rate constants as outcomes of

independent random variables. However, it seems conceivable that there
should be correlations between some of them (for example, first day
evaporation and second day evaporation). The introduction of
correlations might prove influential upon the results. How to estimate
them brings us back to (1) above.
Best
- Antonio
- Antonio Possolo, PhD -- Chief
Statistical Engineering Division
National Institute of Standards & Technology
2of2
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009541
RE: FW: For action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
Subject: RE: FW: For action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:06:20 -0700
To: Runge.Roberta@epamail.epa.gov
CC: Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Thanks Roberta. I'll make sure that NOAA is advised. This is Mark"s last day, but
he should be able to forward it to his replacement accordingly.
NIC-IASG
-----Original Message----From: Runge.Roberta@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Runge.Roberta@epamail.epa.gov]

Subject: Re: FW: For action
FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
Hi Cdr - I think this needs to go to Mark Miller, NOAA rep to the IASG, for a
,response to the spill trajectory question. EPA does not do open ocean modelling.
Roberta
-----Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil wrote: -----
To: Roberta Runge/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Catherine Cesnik@ios.doi.gov"

<catherine cesnik@ios.doi.gov>
Date: 06/30/2010 01:43PM
Subject: FW: For action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
I think that EPA & NOI may have some play on this, specifically if it
hits land. Thanks.
NIC-IASG
-----Original Message----From: Nakama, Robert LCDR

Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 7:52 AM
To: Mark Miller - NOAA; Lopez, Rafael
Cc: Brown, Baron CDR
Subject: FW: For action -- FOR FLASH ACTION (NIC-HQ): Q&A#3583
Importance: High
Hi guys,
Looks like an east coast oil-related inquiry. Would you be able to shed
some light onto the question (Q&A 3583) below?
Thanks.
LCDR Rob Nakama
Asst Coordinator, Interagency Solutions Group
lof2
9/27/20102:09 PM
[Fwd: FOIA Material Request]
009542
Subject: [Fwd: FOIA Material Request]
From: Mary Evans <Mary.Evans@noaa.gov>

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:48:03 -0700
To: _NOS ORR HAZMAT Seattle <nos.orr.hazmat.seattle@noaa.gov>
CC: John Kaperick <John.Kaperick@noaa.gov>
Hello, ERD,
This note is a reminder about the FOIA
for DWH-related emails and other
correspondence with the institutions listed in Greg Bridges' message below. Greg
asks that all relevant files be sent to him by the end of this week (COB Friday).
If you have files relevant to this FOIA and need more time than that, contact Greg
to let him know (301-713-2989 ext. 101 or greg.bridges@noaa.gov). He can request
an extension.
Also, I've attached an updated "FOIA Survival Guide," now OK'd by John Kaperick,
that may make it easier for you to respond to this and future FOIAs l especially if
you have many relevant emails and attachments. If you follow the instructions in
this guide to respond to this FOIA, the attached JPEG shows one way you might set
up a search for relevant emails (step 2 in .the guide). If you find errors in the
guide or have suggestions to improve it, please let me know.
Mary Evans
Greg Bridges wrote:
AlII
Our office has received a FOIA request for electronic mail communications and
correspondence related to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill between OR&R and
personnel from the following institutions:
The University of South Florida's College of Marine Science
Rutgers University
The University of Georgia
University of Southern Mississippi
University of Mississippi
Texas A&M Corpus Christie
Florida State University
The Stevens Institute of Technology
Louisiana State University
Tulane University
The University of California, Berkley
The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San
Diego
Rice University
The Date range for this material is April 20, 2010-May 26, 2010. Please review
your emails and electronic material as soon as possible. If you have any
material that is responsive to this request, please let me know.
Mary B. Evans
Staff Scientist
Genwest!NOAA
lof3
9/27/20102:09 PM
009543
-EDU_search_example.jpg------------------------------
er Horizon on Loca...
~lS~an:hsubfolders
o MgtchaR .oFthe following
Priority
[ Sa:te as Search Folder J
-----------.-----
- - - -......
Subject: FOIA Material Request

From: Greg Bridges <Greg.Bridges@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:42:09 -0400
To: nos.orr.all@noaa.gov
All,
Our office has received a FOIA request for electronic mail communications and
correspondence related to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill between OR&R and
personnel from the following institutions:
The University of South Florida's College of Marine Science
Rutgers University
The University of Georgia
University of Southern Mississippi
University of Mississippi
Texas A&M Corpus Christie
Florida State University
The Stevens Institute of Technology
Louisiana State UniVersity
Tulane University
The University of California, Berkley
The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San
Diego
20f3
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009544
Rice University
The Date range for this material is April 20, 2010-May 26, 2010. Please review
your emails and electronic material as soon as possible. If you have any material
that is responsive to this request, please let me know.
Greg Bridges
Records Manager
SSMC4 RM 10309
1305 East West Highway
Email :
Greg Bridges <greg.bridges@noaa.gov>11

Records Manager
NOAA
\~'.-'----;==============:::::.'/_'- . - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - I
Content-Type:
image/pdf
IFOIASurvivalGuideDWH1Pager.pdf C
.
b
64
I
.
ontent-Encodmg: ase
EDU_search_example.jpg -- ---....-.--.-----~-.---.-------.--.--.-----.------.
IEDU
i
.
Content-Type:
image/jpeg I
search example.jpg C
E
d'
b
64
I ontent- nco mg: ase
.
Content-Type:
message/rfcS22 I
FOIA Material Request.eml C
E
d'
SBIT
ontent- nco mg:
I
30f3
9/27/20102:09 PM
009545
OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RESTORAnON' EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION INTERNAL USE ONLY
FO IA Survival Guide
This document offers a "recipe" to simplify the task of providing electronic documents and
files in response to a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.
Before following the steps below, contact the Help Desk (orr.helpdesk@noaa.gov or 206-526-6955) and
ask them to install the ImportExportTools Thunderbird plug-in for you. They can help you with this whether
you are in the field, Silver Spring, or Seattle.! You need this plug-in to complete the steps below. After the
plug-in has been installed, restart Thunderbird before continuing.
Next, follow these steps:
1.
In Thunderbird, right-click the icon of the folder you want to search (e.g.,
your Inbox or Sent folder, or a folder in Local Folders), then click Search.
!Of<
~cIt
y..., flo
~.I"'"
~-:J'
.~
In the example at right, the Inbox folder will be searched. If you've created a
''Deepwater Horizon" local folder, you can right-click that folder's icon to
search that folder in the same way.
Tip: If you have a one-button mouse, hold down the Control key [CtrIJ on
your keyboard as you click the folder, to mimic a right-click.
2.
Set up your search. At right is an example search of the inbox, including all
subfolders, for emails that contain
"dispersant" in the body of the
message AND that were sent after
4/25/2010 (the incident began with
an explosion on the wellhead on
4/20/2010).
Tips:
Click "Match all of the

following" to fmd the emails
that meet ALL your criteria.
This is usually your best choice.
Clicking <'Match any of the
I You also can find the plug-in in this folder on the OR&R server: N:\Projects\Spill Information\2010\Deep Water
Horizon\FOIA mes - ERD or you can download this plug-in from http://nic-nac-proiect.dcl-kao!>mm/mboximporten.html: Scroll to the bottom of the page, then right-click the "ImportExporrTQols Gylboxlmporr enhanced)" link. and
choose "Save target as" to save the flie to your hard drive. Next, in Thunderbird, select Add-ons from the Tools (or
Extensions) menu, then click Install. Select the f.tle you downloaded (ImportExportTools-2.3.4.xpi) and follow the
instructions. Finally, restart Thunderbird.
009546
following" gets the emails that meet ANY of youx criteria.
. 3.
4.
Select Body to Hnd emails that include youx search keyword(s) in the body of the email Select
Subject to find emails that include youx keyword(s) in the subject line.
Click the + or - buttons to add or remove search criteria.
Click Search. The results of youx search appear as a list of emails in the lower section of the search
box (as at right).
Click Save as Search Folder (as
shown at right).
Soortbfol'~i'l: [~l.~~.!!i'~~~~:~:...:!"~
IE strdl MfoIdiofs
loe4tIon
4j2ll12OI0 4..
NOS ~ playing. auClOl role in ... OovId.Ken~.. 4/29/20102...
Re, What osp""""*,, boi!Y,l u... Ed t"';ne
512/2010 I:...
+' Re: What d\$pCl'sanI$ boi!Y,l u ... Nid<Ie SdIo
512/20102:...
~~nt
lnbox
lnbox
Inbo
lnbox
Foct5heet?l.~_._~~::.~::======:::!nb::OX::;
"_,-."-_,,,:,,,_:::,,~-::.,_I_~~__.~..!. L~~M.IJ~.~~:~I. . ~.~~ . ~". . . .

49~f_
N~ S~"",d SCdrch folder
5.
Type a name for the search folder in

the Name box, then click OK (as
shown at right), The folder of emails
found in youx search now appears in
the list of youx email fol~ers in
Thunderbird's index.
~I
~:
~4IS.~rI:
SeIoa dWI fddor$w $M'Ch:

".
'
. .
'
~.lhoo:J<llll'<hatl<i . . fotthil. ~-ch raider:
o Mtt<;h.tcl.the ~.
O~..,ylftno~O MIitdi~~
r---..-"-~-'--E~~~:--==.... ,,: ~.__::_~_. 4. 0.1.:J

~';;"";11'
==--___.!" '412S1201~ .-------J GJc:J
IMPORT ANT: Don't delete any

emails from the search folder.
Deleting an email from a search folder
moves that email to the Trash. You
must retain all youx emails
related to the Deepwater
Horizon incident.
6.
Close the Search box.
7.
In Thunderbird's list of
folders, right-click the folder
you just created, then select
Import/ Export> Export all

messages in the folder> EML
format (as at right). Choose or
.,,_.--______1
~'--()!(----'.
009547
create a folder to save yoU! files in, then click OK

All the email messages in yoU! search folder are copied to a "messages" folder inside the new folder.
Attachments are included with the emails.An "index.html" file is created inside the new folder to
serve as an index of yoU! emails.
Tips:
Give Thunderbird time to complete the export. Otherwise, not all yoU! flies will be
exported. If this happens, just repeat step 7, leaving more time for the export to complete.
IMPO RT ANT: If yoU! search found emails that you don't want to submit in
response to a FOIA request, remove them from the new folder that you just created
during this step. Never delete them from the search folder you created in
Thunderbird (i.e., the folder in Thunderbird's right sidebar)-doing so moves them
to the Trash. (However, deleting a search folder does not move the files it contains
to the Trash.)
To review an exported email and any attached flie, double-click that email's file icon. It will
display in Thunderbird and you'll be able to see and open the attachment.
8.
If you have other folders in Thunderbird that contain emails related to the FOIA topic, follow steps
1 to 7 above for each of those folders, saving the messages into the same folder. Note that when you
search a folder, all the sub folders in it also are searched.
9.
If you have other electronic documents related to the FOIA request, add them to your folder.
10. Use one of the following methods to send yoU! flies to NOAA OR&R's FOIA coordinator, Greg
Bridges (Greg.Bridgcs@noaa.gov):
Copy your folder to the following folder on the OR&R server: N:\Projects\Spill
Information\201O\Deep Water Horizon\FOIA files - ERD. Place yoU! folder in the
subfolder for the FOIA request you are responding to (if this sub folder hasn't yet been
created, please create one and put your files in it). When you do this, please send an email to
mary.evans@noaa.gov to let Mary Evans know.
If you'd rather submit yoU! files yoU!self or can't access the OR&R server, then:
i. if you have just a few email messages relevant to the FOIA, forward them to Greg
(Greg.Bridges@noaa.gov).
ll.
if you have many messages, either

1.
use WinZip, Stuffit, or another compression utility to compress yoU! mes

into a single flie, and then email that flie to Greg, or
2.
copy yoU! mes to a CD, then Fedex or mail the CD to Greg:
009548
Greg Bridges
Records Manager
SSMC4 RM 10309
1305 East West Highway
(Greg's office: 301-713-2989 ext. 101
Greg's fax: 301-713-4389
Email: Greg.Bridges@noaa.gov)
Tips:
When you've ftn.ished working with a search folder in Thunderbird, you can right-click on it to delete it
Deleting a search folder does not delete the emails in it.
You can right-click on a search folder, then click Properties, change your search criteria, and run a new
search.
U sefll! references
NOAA's FOIA page - http://,,,v,",'W.corporateservices.noaa.govl-foia/
FOIA Exemptions - hq;p:! iW'"'''''.corporarescrvlces.noaa.gov/foia!foiacx.html-lists the types of
information that you do not have to provide in response to a FOIA request
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration' NOAA's National Ocean Service' Office of Response and Restoration
Last revised: July 7, 2010
009549
oil budget tool
Subject: oil budget tool

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:20:36 -0700
To: Charlie Henry <Charlie.Henry@noaa.gov>, Steve Lehmann
<Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
CC: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Ed Levine <Ed.Levine@noaa.gov>, Doug
Helton <Ooug.Helton@noaa.gov>, Robert Pavia <Robert.Pavia@noaa.gov>
Charlie,
You asked to be notified when we finished with the mass balance calculations.
According to the USGS programmer, the new oil budget tool (ICS 209) is now
operational (see attached). In cooperation with a couple of NIST folks, I am
polishing up the technical documentation.
Bill
"
Content-Type:
application/pdf
DeepwaterHonzonOilBudget20100706-1.pdf C
E
d"
b
64
ontent- nco 109: ase
lofl
9/27/20102:09 PM
009550

Executive Summary (Mean Values) - Through July 05 (Day 77)
Cumulative
Discharged
.......
.'
'Recovered via RITTand Top Hat
..' .....
";
~,Dispersed
Naturally
EvaPoratedorDissoIYe~
......
..
"\July05
45,000.00
2,797,500.00
..i.
.
.........
<';;'.
":
:653,756.00
'291J88~~30
. ..' 671,242.10 . :.
.
.
'
...
,..
.2tf.982.00
. ..
i.
;;'2'00700
'::'.::.'
.
'5,447,70
Available for Recovery,
1,180,615.60
12,233.30
..
Skimmed
,.
73,028.20
1,35L4Q
Burned
238,854.00
0.00
197;835:40
4,437.70
32,560.71 !
296.48
Chemically~Dispersed
Dispersant Used
Remaining
..
670,898.00
6,444.20

009551
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf lncident Oil Budget

009552
Discharged
The current oil budget calculation uses a different range of discharge rates for the start of the incident
through June 3 when the riser was cut and then after that time:
-Start of incident through June 3 - 20,000 to 40,000 bbl/day
-After June 3 - 35,000 to 60,000 bbl/day
The cumulative total in the executive summary and the "Disposition of Oil" graph are calculated using
the mean of the discharge range (45,000 bbl/day after June 3).

Dispersed Naturally
009553
more information.


009554
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.

009555
Dispersant Used

Aeport generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 07/06/201008:03 AM MDT.
Re: oil budget tool
009556
Subject: Re: oil budget tool
From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:35:14 -0400
To: BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov
Bill,
Do you have the uri?
Mark
Bill Lehr wrote:
Charlie,
You asked to be notified when we finished with the mass balance calculations.
According to the USGS programmer, the new oil budget tool (IeS 209) is now
operational (see attached). In cooperation with a couple of NIST folks, I am
polishing up the technical documentation.
Bill
1 of 1
9/27/20102:09 PM
Re: oil budget tool
009557

From: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:59:53 -0700
Mark,
The Oil Budget program itself is on a password protected website. Contact Sky
Bristol to get access. I assume that the JIC should be publishing the daily
totals.
i Bill,
j
!
I
Do you have the url?
1 of 1
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009558
Re: oil budget tool

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:52:21 -0400
To: BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov, Jason Rolfe <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>
I have a password I just don't have the VRL. Also I thought we would ask for "Read
Only" accounts for all the SSCs. Makes sense?
Mark
Bill Lehr wrote:
I Mark,
I
t The Oil
! Bristol
Budget program itself is on a password protected website. Contact Sky

to
access. I assume that the JIC should be publishing the daily
~ totals.
iOn 7/7/10 2:35 PM, Mark.W.Miller wrote:

.
I~'t! BJ.ll,
~
1
'
i I Do you have the url?
II! i
1 of I
9/27/20102:09 PM
009559
RE: Oil Budget Question
Subject: RE: Oil Budget Question

From: "McElroy, Amy Lr' <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul2010 12:27:18 -0400
To: kernt@usgs.gov
CC: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Wingrove, Richard" <Richard.R.Wingrove@noaa.gov>,
"Rolfe, Jason" <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>
Tim,
I did look at it and like it very much. I am trying to figure out how to get the
field to conduct this work. I will talk to the NOAA rep here and get back to you.
Thank you,
Amy
-----Original Message----From: kernt@usgs.gov [mailto:kernt@usgs.gov]
To: McElroy, Amy LT
Subject: Fw: Oil Budget Question
Lt McElroy,
Did you have a chance to review Bill's idea? We can also go with your original
idea (number of yard containers collected) if that will get us some useful
information.
Thanks!
Tim Kern
(fax)
----- Forwarded by Tim Kern/BRD/USGS/DOI on 07/08/10 10:21 AM ----Oil Budget Question
Tim Kern
to:
07/06/10 05:02 PM
Cc:
McElroy, Amy LT, Sky Bristol
David Mack
Lt McElroy,
Bill Lehr suggested that we do the following
1. mark out three representative 1 meter swaths from the high-water mark
2. collect all the oil in those swaths
lof2
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009560
RE: Oil Budget Question
3. determine the oil density (amount of oil per square meter)

4. calculate the number of square meters cleaned up that day
This means the system would accept one extra daily variable (square meters of
beach cleaned up) and one extra general variable (oil density on the beach, in
Isquare meter). This number would be made part of the summary statistics
it reasonable to get these numbers? Is there anyway to get these numbers
square meters of beach
for past days?
Tim Kern
(fax)
2of2
9/27/20102:09 PM
Skimmer efficiency and beached oil quantity
009561
Subject: Skimmer efficiency and beached oil quantity

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:17:02 -0400
To: William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Timothy Gallagher
<timothy.gallagher@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,
Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Cynthia Decker <Cynthia.Decker@noaa.gov>,
Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
All, I was just
by BOEM's (formerly MMS) David Moore.
He is very
interested in
a three person "strike team" to help eliminate some of the
uncertainty surrounding skimmer efficiency.
His approach has not
been vetted through the USCG but I expect the response
will be supportive. He suggests that the three person team consist of one rep
each from NOAA, BOEM and USCG. Their task would be to ride aboard offshore
skimmers to assess operations and develop a protocol/process to quantify total
volume collected, percentages of water and oil and other ephemeral data in an
attempt to better quantify the oil budget.
Coincidently,
USCG LT McElroy asked me if I thought it would make sense to modify
current SCAT
to help quantify beached oil.
LT McElroy received the
idea from NOAA's Bill Lehr. Essentially the SCAT team would1. mark out three representative 1 meter swaths from the high-water mark
This means the
would accept one extra daily variable (square meters of
gallons/square meter). This number would be made part of the summary statistics
and charting.
I suggested to both of them that the approaches seem to help answer critical
questions about recovered oil.
I also suggested that if CG staff here at the NIC
approve of the ideas, th,at they loop in UAC as soon as practical.
I will let you know of any developments.
I don't have more information than what
I have provided, so if you hav,e suggestions that affect the process, please let me
know.
Thank you,
Jason
1 of 1
9/27/20102:09 PM
009562
Re: Skimmer efficiency and beached oil quantity
Subject: Re: Skimmer efficiency and beached oil quantity

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:30:44 -0400
thanks for clarifying the scat/ops thing.
i think they want to
that oil/water ratio in collected oil. yes, that's their
point. the three person observer team is intended to help them do that. maybe i
didn't ask dave moore the right questions.
jason
Jason,
Quick thoughts
i Skimmer
efficiency is worthwhile but from an Oil Budget stand point they just
I need to know the oil water ratio in the collected oil. We have requeited this
!multiple times to mult
entities.
! Also
I any.
the beach recovery is not a SCAT issue but an Operations issue - Cleanup of
beach/marsh impact is run by Ops.
I! Mark
i
I Jason
Rolfe wrote:
.
All, I was just approached by BOEM's (formerly MMS) David Moore. He is very
I interested in building a three person "strike team" to help eliminate some of i
I the uncertainty surrounding skimmer
II His approach has not yet been vetted through the USCG but I expect the
II
II response will be supportive. He suggests that the three person team consist ! 1
~! of one rep each from NOAA, BOEM and USCG. Their task would be to ride aboard
11 offshore skimmers to assess operations and develop a protocol/process to
II quantify total volume collected, percentages of water and oil and other
II
ephemeral data in an attempt to better quantify the oil budget.
I!!!
"I;
II
II
II
i
I,
I
i
i,
Coincidently, USCG LT McElroy asked me if I thought it would make sense to

modify current SCAT procedures to help quantify beached oil. LT McElroy
received the idea from NOAA's Bill Lehr. Essentially the SCAT team would1. mark out three representative 1 meter swaths from the high-water mark
This means the system would accept one extra daily variable (square meters of
I gallons/square meter). This number would be made part of the summary
I statistics and charting.
j
'I'
answer critical
I suggested to both of them that the approaches seem to
questions about recovered oil. I also suggested that if CG staff here at the
, NIC approve of the ideas, that they loop in UAC as soon as practical.
"
I,'
I will let you know of any developments. I don't have more information than
what I have provided, so if you have suggestions that affect the process,
I please let me know.
.
I,
I!
II
If
'1'
. Thank you,
lof2
9/27/20102:09 PM
Re: Skimmer efficiency and beached oil quantity
009563
! I Jason
2of2
9/27/20102:09 PM
MEETING NOTES
009564
800 AM NOAA DWH LEADERSHIP AGEN ...
Subject: MEETING NOTES _ 800 AM NOAA DWH LEADERSHIP AGENDA 7.12.2010_

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 201009:26:32 -0400
To: DWH leadership <DWH.leadership@noaa.gov>
Good morning everyone,
Attached are the notes from this morning's 8:00 AM DWH leadership briefing.
Below are the action items and reminders from today's meeting (as well as within the attached doc)
ACTION ITEMS fROM TODAY:

1. More info on In Situ burns: Joe Inslee/Bill Conner
2. Turtle Observer Contracts to discuss: Eric Scliwaab/Kennedy
3. Finalize fisheries proposal opening this week - Eric Schwaab
4. Send draft of the Fisheries proposal that FDA is reviewing to Monica and Kris Sarri Eric Schwaab
5. Samples Science Data deviation press release samples to the public - Eric Ll\AR / Comms - press release/roll out strategy
6. Document the fact that there is little or no oil in the currently closed area - LMR / Eric/ Bill Conner / DWH
7. Touch base with USCG / all of our SSC's to inform them as to where we are on the status of the re-opening of the current
Fisheries closure. - I.MR / Eric
8. Final date for meeting with Navy - (Murawski)
9. Outreach to communities - Advertising opportunities and key messages (Justin/Monica)
10. Update on Gliders tomorrow (Murawski)
11. Day 100 : need to start tee-ing up the stories of what we are dojng -If all goes well and well is capped (Justin/Kennedy
/Westerholm meet to discuss)
12. Next week (Tuesday) - Dr. Lubchenco to speak with SAB. Package upcoming issues. (Justin)
13. Update on posting of data - Joe Klimavicz is having with Science box (Joe Klimavicz)
14. Updates on what is happening at the Deputies meeting (Monica)
REMINDERS:
1. Tomorrow: Budget Update
2. Tomorrow: DWH Oil Spill Commission Briefing Charlie Henry to deliver NOAA message.
3. Dr. Robinson prep - Monday at 5:30pm ET (call-in 877-934-2503; password 1295152) to help Dr. Robinson prep for the C]S
hearing on the 15th.
4. Wednesday Issue Team Meeting 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM
MEETING NOTES
lof!
800 AM NOAA DWH LEADERSHIP AGENDA 7.12.2010 .doc ccontentt-TEype:d'

aPP lication/msword
o!"ten nco mg: base64
9/27/20102:09 PM
009565
July 12,'2010
DEEPWATERHORIZON INCIDENT NOAA LEADERSlfiP BRIEFING CALL
;Tidze:080(}c-,<CiJl in Number: 21 O-:839~8783 -PlflSsCode: 554982
MEETING PURPOSE: To update key NOAA officials on the current status of the
situation and the NOAA response.
DAILY UPDATES:
1. Situation Update
NIC - prep for disp. Webinar - 10:30 - 2:30 EST - Tomorrow
Over the weekend - working on TP's of top hat and flow
Response:
On Saturday BP removed the Top Hat containment and collection device in preparation to install the
capping stack mechanism. By yesterday the riser pipe and its flange had been removed & replaced with
the spool piece currently being bolted down. All is progressing well so far, but until the capping stack is
in position & functional oil continues to flow freely from the top of the BOP. Although the Q4000
continues draw oil and gas through the choke lines, more than 50,000 bbls/ day could be exiting
through the top. Efforts to begin production on the Helix Producer experienced a minor setback
yesterday as a valve on the free-standing riser could not be opened - plans to hard wire valve into the
open position underway; expect oil on the Helix Producer soon.
Should the capping stack successfully be able to draw 90% of oil from the BOP, OPS estimates that within
3-5 days dispersant applications and in situ burns would cease mainly due to lack of available oil. These
tools will remain at the ready should circumstances require.
Yesterday, overflights observed more oil on the surface ivo the source. In general the surface expression
of the plume reached approximately 20 miles to the E. Although relatively light, winds are expected to be
generally out of the W providing offshore flow during the period of increased flow from the source.
Coastal currents have also returned to an easterly flow, Eddy Franklin may be breaking up as it meanders
westward. All these forces combined should mitigate some of the impact of increased flow at the source
as well as provide some reprieve for the Delta, Breton, Chandeleur & Mississippi Sounds as well as the
Lakes Borgne & Ponchartrain areas.
Oil reported about ten miles off of Tampa last week was analyzed as lube oil. The tar ball samples
collected at CoCo Beach were identified as petroleum but no match for MC 252 oil. Still awaiting results
of samples collected from the Bolivar Peninsula, TX and oil south of High Island, Texas.
Late last week weather conditions improved enough to resume in situ burn operations. Now an increased
presence of wildlife observers available to watch for & protect turtles & marine mammals ivo burn OPS.
The Navy blimp now operational adds to the arsenal of available platforms for observers to monitor sea
life.
Concerns have been raised that burn residue from in situ burns is sinking. Samples will be collected and
analyzed to characterize the composition and density of burn residue. With thorough analysis including
particle size, modeling of the residue can be conducted.
Sector Mobile discussing use of dispersants and solidifiers in AOR. Although both were preauthorized by
RRT4 - several factors must be addressed before approval granted for their use. Dispersants an issue
because targets of opportunity available to aerial deliveries within Mobile AOR. Solidifiers because
concerns are growing about what to do with oil collecting in booms and delays in skimmer availability.
White foam ivo LOOP terminal causing some concerns that it is emulsified oil. Samples will be taken and
analyzed.
2. Weather Update
009566
Quiet over the site - changes may increase - winds remain light and variable
should remain between 1-2 ft.
w / sw 10 knots / seas
3. Living Marine Resources

a. wildlife impacts
Turtle issues:
Berm Management - long been suck up and injure turtles / two trawlers lin anticipation of the hopper
dredges have captured 20 turtles - shipped them to open net vetting
Hopper dredge began sat afternoon - observers on board
Contracts for observers - skim/berm operations: 1. Ramp up procurement of observers and ramp up the 60
that has been lavishing in area command.
Briefed coast guard and bp leadership on need to move the contract run up against the expectation that if
they anticipate the wind down of operations they are not excited of renewing the contract. Need to
approvals and contractual support - Eric Schwaab/Kennedy
b. seafood safety
Call to review the numbers on sample processing and review vessel deployment plan and process for
moving samples through the analysis steps and then review the proposal for reopening the SE area.
Finalize opening this week. Proposal will follow the protocols on chemical and sensory analysis.
Have a proposal that the FDA is reviewing - if there are any concerns or objections - NWFS is happy to do
so. Samples deviates substantially - had light sheen and tar balls moving through.
FDA - share the data we've collected / clearance process
IG/GIA report - Glackin - recommend making the deviation of the science from samples to the public.
Have we taken other samples and not processed them? - 5 samples left that are going through chem.
Analysis. Don't know logistics of moving more samples onshore. Would be a few more weeks to collect
more.
Sample Processors - will do more dock side sampling when we move to release the info.
Dr. L - if there is any doubt - we should error on the side of safety to the food market. if anything moved
through the area / fish / - there is very little doubt of oil.
Gen. Nash - mentioned on call to see if USCG was expecting to get something from NOAA today on the
status of the decision. - LMR has been in constant contact with USCG
Enforcements any more violations? - Nothing New since middle of last week.
Less attention on part of coast guard? - our people have had a stepped up presence and uscg has been a
part of that.
4. Science
Seafood low risk probability- over a month of surface sheen.
Gunter encountered 2 sperm whales
Discussion - Friday with Navy to use one of their vessels and potential missions for them.
5. Communications
Weather calming - reporters heading back to the field and looking to re-connect on Shoreline and
Assessment work and embedded opportunities
Getting ready for DWH oil commission meeting
Advertising part of outreach of how we are informing fisherman -gotten info in Vietnamese / need to
work on mainstream media.
If all goes well and well is capped - need to start tee-ing up the stories of what we are doing - more interest
in public awareness will be forthcoming.-
009567
Update on well capping: Good news helix producer has lined up their valves. Will know by lunch if the
capping stack is in place. Production was expected to start this morning.
6. Other reports as needed/timely (Legal, NRDA, OLA, Data and Information,

International, and Economics and Recovery)
SPECIFIC DAY UPDATES:

Monday .... Policy
1.
2.
3.
4.
Long term restoration group - three memo's team has preparing - sending to Mabus. First one is
complete, Second should go out this week, Third - currently being drafted - Scope/Engagement of
states/NRD
Final memo funding, coordinate environmental review / science/regional planning needs /
regulatory issues. - Team of feds are working through CEQ.
Brief Sec. Mabus - Murwaski/Haddad/Spring/Yozell/Hallberg/Bavishi/Westerholm(?) .
Oil spill commission questions for first meeting with Charlie Henry
Congress is back in session - 50 bills have been introduced. Making sure we have a consistent
message concurrent and early involvement when it comes to ocs siting / scientific lead with USCG
and MMS / figure out how to fund everything - Oil related I explain we have a lot of existing
authority.
Engaged with WH office of cabinet affairs / OMB that science/authority/siting need to be lead by
NOAA.
REVIEW AcrION ITEMS:
CURRENT I OUTSTANDING AcfION ITEMS:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
NOAA/DWH remarks to the Oil Spill Commission - Charlie Henry (Justin)

5 Key NOAA Messages (Justin) - In Process
Standard Briefing to the Commission outline draft (Justin) - In Process
Mabus Briefing status? (Jainey) - In Process - to be completed TODAY
NOAA science symposiums (Shelby) -In Process
In Process
ArnON ITEMS FROM TODAY:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
More info on In Situ burns: Joe Inslee/Bill Conner

Turtle Observer Contracts to discuss: Eric Schwaab/Kennedy
Finalize fisheries proposal opening this week - Eric Schwaab
Send draft of the Fisheries proposal that FDA is reviewing to Monica and Kris Sam - Eric Schwaab
Samples Science Data deviation press release samples to the public - Eric LMR I Comms press
release/roll out strategy
6. Document the fact that there is little or no oil in the currently closed area - IMR / Eric/ Bill
Conner/DWH
7. Touch base with USCG / all of our SSC's to inform them as to where we are on the status of the
re-opening of the current Fisheries closure. - IMR / Eric
8. Final date for meeting with Navy - (Murawski) - Frlday,r~U1Y~;il~:frorri~t():30..;t;1 :SOaril
9. Outreach to communities - Advertising opportunities and key messages (Justin/Monica)
10. Update on Gliders tomorrow (Murawski)
11. Day 100 : need to start tee:-ing up the stories of what we are doing -If all goes well and well is capped
(Justin/Kennedy/Westerholm meet to discuss)
1Z. Next week (Tuesday) - Dr. Lubchenco to speak with SAB. Package upcoming issues. (Justin)
13. Update on posting of data - Joe Klimavicz is having with Science box (Joe Klimavicz)
14. Updates on what is happening at the Deputies meeting (Monica)
009568
~ERs:
1. Tomorrow: Budget Update
2. Tomorrow: DWH - Oil Spill Commission Briefing - Charlie Henry to deliver NOAA message.
3. Dr. Robinson prep - Monday at 5:30pm ET (call-in 877-934-2503; password 1295152) to
help Dr. Robinson prep for the CJS hearing on the 15th.
4. Wednesday Issue Team Meeting 10:00 AM 11:00 AM
FW: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling
009569
Subject: FW: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling

From: "Parsons, Roger" <Roger.L.Parsons@uscg.mil>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:40:39 -0400
To: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, Andy.Armstrong@noaa.gov
Mark - Andy is the co-director of the NOAAIUNH Joint Hydrographic Center. He and
his UNH counterpart, Dr.
Mayer, have had little success outside their
initial use of NOAA Ships GUNTER and THOMAS JEFFERSON in securing subsequent NOAA
ship time to continue their work on acoustically analyzing the subsurface plume.
Is this work important to the Flow Rate Technical Group in helping to establish
the overall oil budget and if so, any suggestions for how the FRTG might lend
their support to JHC's efforts to secure additional ship time?
Andy - Mark is with OR&R's Emergency Response Division and is one of the NOAA
reps on the NIC Interagency Solutions Team here at USCG HQ. Among the many
issues in which Mark is involved is flow rate, oil budget, and alternative
countermeasures.
Roger
Vir,
Roger L. Parsons
CAPT, NOAA (ret.)
-----Original Message----From: Andy.Armstrong@noaa.gov [rnailto:Andy.Armstrona@noaa.gov]

Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:02 PM
To: Roger L. Parsons; Parsons, Roger
Subject: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling
Hi Roger,
As you know, Larry and Tom Weber here at the Joint Hydrographic Center
have been helping in the processing of acoustic and water sample data
related to submerged oil and gas around the spill site. They and some
of the NOAA group trying to monitor and track oil in the water column
are getting desperately frustrated by the lack of ship assets for this
effort, particularly since their ability to connect the indications of a
subsurface plume to the well may be disappearing soon if the capping is
successful. Would you be willing to chat on the phone (5- 10 min) about
ship tasking this afternoon or tomorrow morning?
If you can't get free for a call, it won't hurt my feelings.
Best,
Andy
Andrew A. Armstrong, Capt. NOAA (Ret.)
Co-Director
NOAAIUNH Joint Hydrographic Center
Chase Ocean Engineering Bldg
24 Colovos Road
lof2
9/27/20102:09 PM
009570
Durham, NH 03824-3525
Visit our website at
20f2
9/27/20102:09 PM
Re: [Fwd: FW: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling]
009571
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling]

From: Samuel Walker <Sam.Walker@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul2010 06:57:01 -0500
Hi MarkI'm about to jump on the NOAA Leadership call.
Just let me know the best number,
Can I give you a ring after that?
Short answer is there is no pre-set path, but we are well aware of this need.
BestSam
Sam,
I am not asking for special treatment for this person I just want to know what
is the normal path for these types of requests?
Hope you are taking care of yourself.
Mark
Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:40:39 -0400
Date:
From:
Parsons, Roger <Roger.L.Parsons@uscg.mil>
Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, Andy.Armstrong@noaa.gov
To:
!l Mark
- Andy is the co-director of the NOAA/UNH Joint Hydrographic Center. He

his UNH counterpart, Dr. Larry Mayer, have had little success outside their
1 initial use of NOAA Ships GUNTER and THOMAS JEFFERSON in securing subsequent
I NOAA ship time to continue their work on acoustically analyzing the subsurface
!plume. Is this work important to the Flow Rate Technical Group in helping to
establish the overall oil budget and if so, any suggestions for how the FRTG
might lend their support to JHC's efforts to secure additional ship time?
Andy - Mark is with OR&R's Emergency Response Division and is one of the NOAA
1
, reps on the NIC Interagency Solutions Team here at USCG HQ. Among the many
" countermeasures.
I and
111
I
$
!i Roger
lof2
I
I
I
I
I! V /r,
I
II
Roger L. Parsons
CAPT, NOAA (ret.)
9/27/20102:09 PM
Re: [Fwd: FW: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling]
009572
I -----Original
Message----Andy.Armstrong@noaa.qov [mailto:Andy.Armstrong@noaa.gov] Sent: Monday,

July 12, 2010 5: 02 PM
I To: Roger L. Parsons; Parsons, Roger
! Subject: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling
I From:
IHi Roger,
~
i
IAs
you know, Larry and Tom Weber here at the Joint Hydrographic Center have been
! helping in the processing of acoustic and water sample data related to
! submerged oil and gas around the spill site. They and some of the NOAA group
I trying to monitor and track oil in the water column are getting desperately
! frustrated by the lack of ship assets for this effort, particularly since their
I ability to connect the indications of a subsurface plume to the well may be
t disappearing soon if the capping is successful. Would you be willing to chat on
I the phone (5- 10 min) about ship tasking this afternoon or tomorrow morning?
!
!, I f
you can t
f
free for a call, it won't hurt my feelings.
I Best,
Andy
I--
I Andrew
A. Armstrong, Capt. NOAA (Ret.)
! Co- Director
I NOAA/UNH
Joint Hydrographic Center
I Chase Ocean Engineering Bldg

24 Colovos Road
1 Durham, NH 03824-3525
Visit our website at http://www.ccom.unh.edu
Samuel P. WalkerI PhD

Senior Technical Data Manager
NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System (100S) Program
1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1225
2 of2
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009573
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program...
Subject: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military

Nexus
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 201009:09:57 -0400
To: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes, Sherry ZIt <SykesSZ@state.gov>,
nKim, Elizabeth AB (DES)" <KimEAB@state.gov>, "Colon, Frances A (WHA)"
<ColonFA@state.gov>
.
cc: Brendan. Bray@noaa.gov, Debbie. Payton@noaa.gov, Allison. Reed@noaa.gov,
Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov, Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Dubel, Jefferson Kif
<DubeIJK@state.gov>, "Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD USNORTHCOM HQs Ie DOS"
<Susan.Reinert@northcom.mil>, Janice.Smith@tcsc.southcom.mil
Jim and NOAA Colleagues:
NORTHCOM, as you all know, has generously agreed to fund the technical assistance program for one
Bahamian scientist at the end of this month at your Seattle Headquarters. However, in order to fund this
opportunity, NORTHCOM has requested that there be a "military Nexus."
This "nexus" would consist of a Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF) representative accompanying the
Bahamian scientist for the four-week program. The RBDF officer would also have some scientific
background and would apply the information learned to disaster management. NORTHCOM would cover
expenses for this individual as well.
Before I proceed with making arrangements, I would like to request your assistance/cooperation in
accommodating the RBDF officer, and to allow both the Bahamian scientist/RBDF officer to ta ke two days in
the middle of their four-week program (dates of your choosing) to travel to NORTHCOM Headquarters in
Colorado (expenses also paid by NORTHCOM).
Please advise ASAP, as your decision is needed to proceed with logistical arrangements.
Thanks,
Brooke
From: James Turner [mailto:James.Turner@noaa.gov]

To: Moppert, Brooke S; Sykes, Sherry Z; Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES); Colon, Frances A (WHA)
Cc: 'Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov'; 'debbie.payton@noaa.gov'; 'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov';
'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'
Responses to Brooke's visit logistics questions. Please note, if current OMB restrictions on discussing the loop
current do not change prior to a visit, we will develop appropriate guidance.

lof5
9/27/20JO 2:09 PM
009574
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program ..
Cc: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>; 'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov' <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>;

'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov' < Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jun 2408:26:462010
Dr Turner,
training course. As you will see belowr we are not thinking of this visit as a formal training, but it
to them in early June. If an experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of .
ocean observation / modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person to gain a basic
Modeling Environment (GNOIVIE); learn about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity
tools to oil and chemical spillS in the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an opportunity to
Watertown Hotel. http://www.watertownseattle.coml
50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:
Fyi, see additional information requested by Bahamas and the explanation about why they need it.
Thanks
Subject:
2of5
9/27/20102:09 PM
009575
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program...
From:
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner <James. Turner@noaa.gov>
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
CC:
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson Kit <DubeIJK@state.gov>
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail chain below) - they would like to have a
schedule of training, a description of the training and what skills the trainee would obtain at the end of the
training.
This may seem like a lotto ask of NOAA, but the Bahamian government must have this information in order
to justify the expense to Parliament. The Prime Minister has currently banned all government travel as a
cost-saving maneuver (there are hard economic times here as well). Therefore, anything you can provide
with more detail would go a long way in facilitating this exchange.
Thanks,
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
Nassau, The Bahamas
moppertbs@state.gov
From: Carol Albury [mailto:c

To: Moppert, Brooke S; Carolann albury; C Albury
There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would be a schedule of training
which is to take place over the duration of say 4 weeks. A brief on what the technical person(s)
who is receiving the training would be capable of performing as a result of the training.
Regards
--------------------------------30f5
9/27/20102:09 PM
009576
URGENT PLEASE READ ~ Bahamas Technical Assistance Program...
carolann albury
Director,
From: calbury@
.
To: moppertbs@state.gov; carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs; calbury@
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,

In reference to our conversation concerning the above captioned, I am advised by Captain
Russell to submit communications regarding costing for our technical officer to take advantage of
the technical assistance being offered by The US through the NOAA office. I suppose the office is
located at 7600 Sand Point Way I\lE Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif Project Office/National Weather
Service).
Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per diem, ground transportation,
round trip airfare and communications, grateful if you would provide the following information
which would help determining cost implications:
Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for, us and while my budget has been slashed
this training is considered by the BNGIS Centre and the MET Department as very important and
essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill particularly in our region.
Regards
-----------------
carolann albury
Director,
40fS
9/27/20 I 0 2:09 PM
009577
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program. ..
50fS
9/27/20102:09 PM
009578
[Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Pr ...
Subject: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military Nexus]
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 201009:33:47 -0400
To: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>
CC: "'Aliison.Reed@noaa.gov''' <A/lison.Reed@noaa.gov>, "'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov''' <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>, Mark W
Miller <Mark,WMiller@noaa,gov>
Brendan/Debbie,
Your call, please let me know what you decide.
Thanks
Subject: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military Nexus
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 201009:09:57 -0400
To: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>, "Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES)"
<KimEAB@state.gov>, "Colon, Frances A (WHA)" <ColonFA@state.gov>
CC: Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov, Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov, A/lison.Reed@noaa.gov, Pamela,Toschik@noaa.gov,
Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubeIJK@state.gov>, "Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD USNORTHCOM Has IC
DOS" <Susan.Reinert@northcom.mil>, Janice.Smith@tcsc.southcom.mil
NORTHCOM, as you all know, has generously agreed to fund the technical assistance program for one Bahamian SCientist at the end of this month at your
Seattle Headquarters. However, in order to fund this opportunity, NORTHCOM has requested that there be a "military Nexus."
This "nexus" would consist of a Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF) representative accompanying the Bahamian scientist for the fourweek program. The
RBDF officer would also have some SCientific background and would iJp,ply the information learned to disaster management. NORTHCOM would cover
Before I proceed with making arrangements, I would like to request your aSSistance/cooperation in accommodating the RBDF officer, and to allow both the
Bahamian scientist/RBDf officer to take two days in the middle of their four-week program (dates of your choosing) to travel to NORTHCOM Headquarters
in Colorado (expenses also paid by NORTHCOM).
Thanks,
Brooke
From: James Tumer [mailto:James,Tumer@noaa.gov]

To: Moppert, Brooke 5; Sykes, Sherry Z; Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES); Colon, Frances A (WHA)
Cc:: 'Brendan.Bray@noaa,90v'i 'debbie.payton@noaa.gov'i 'Aliison.Reed@noaa.gov'; 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'i 'Mar!<.W.Miller@noaa.gov'
Responses to Brooke's viSit logistics questions. Please note, if current OMB restrictiOns on discussing the loop current do not change prior to a visit, we will
develop appropriate guidan::e.

To: James Tumer <James,Tumer@noaa.gov>
Cc:: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>; 'Aliison.Reed@noaa,gov' <Allison.Reed@noaa,gov>; 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'
<Pamela.To5Chik@noaa.gov>
Sent Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010

Dr Turner,
Please find below the OR&R response to Embassy Nassau's questions on logistiCS for the trip to Seattle. I've also included an answer to
their 2nd round of questions re: contents of a 4 week training course. As you will see below, we are not thinking of this visit as a formal
training, but it will be a great learn.ing opportunity for the right candidate.
We do not have a speCific 4 week training course to offer, The 4 week time frame came in response to one of the original questions asked
by Embassy Nassau following our initial briefing to them in early June. If an experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge
of ocean observation I modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person to gain a basic understanding of our oil fate and trajectory
modeling approach.
100
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009579
During the 4 week stay, the visiting scientist will work in the Seattle office of the Office or Response and Restoration, Emergency Response
Division. The visitor will have the opportunity to observe the development of daily fate and trajectory models for the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill;speak with NOAA sdentists working on the spill; learn about the General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn
about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity database; and develop a broader understanding of how to apply these forecasting and
modeling tools to oil and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an opportunity to discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport
models related to the Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on the status of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico.

Watertown Hotel. http://www.watertownseattle.coml

50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:
Fyi, see additional information requested by Bahamas and the explanation about why they need it. Thanks
Subject:
From:
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z"<SvkesSZUiJ,state.gov>, James Turner <James.Tumer@noaa.gov>
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner <lames.Tumer(@,noaa.gov>
CC:
.
.
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubeIJK@state.gov>
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail chain below) - they would like to have a schedule of training. a description of the training and
what skillS the trainee would obtain at the end of the training.
This may seem like a lot to ask of NOAA, but the Bahamian government must have this information in order to justify the expense to Parliament. The Prime
Minister has currently banned all government travel as a cost saving maneuver (there are hard economic times here as well). Therefore, anything you can
provide with more detail would go a long way in facilitating this exchange.
Thanks,
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
Embassy of the Un ited States of America
Nassau, The Bahamas
moppertbs@state.gov
From: carol Albury [
Sent: Tuesday, June 221 2010 8:20 AM

To: Moppert, Brooke Si Carolann alburyi C Albury
There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would be a schedule of training which is to take place over the duration of
say 4 weeks. A brief on what the technical person(s) who is receiving the training would be capable of performing as a result of the
training.
20f3
9/27/2010 2:09 PM
009580

Regards
carolann albury
Director,
From: calbury@
.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,
In reference to our conversation concerning the above captioned, I am advised by Captain Russell to submit communications regarding
costing for our technical officer to take advantage of the technical assistance being offered by The US through the NOAA office. I suppose
the office is located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif Project OfficelNational Weather Service).
Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per diem, ground transportation, round trip airfare and communications,
grateful if you would provide the following information which would help determining cost implications:
Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while my budget has been slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS
Centre and the MET Department as very important and essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill particularly in our region.
Regards
carolann albury
Director,

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
G...~
it now.
!Content-Type:
message/rfc822
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military Nexus.emll C
.
7b'
I ontent-Encodmg: it
30f3
9/27/20102:09 PM
009581
[Fwd: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assist...
We do not have a specific 4 week training course to offer. The 4 week time frame came in response to one of the original questions asked by
Embassy Nassau following our initial briefing to them in early June. If an experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of ocean
observation I modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person to gain a basic understanding of our oil fate and trajectory modeling approach.
Division. The visitor will have the opportunity to observe the development of daily fate and trajectory models for the Deepwater Horizon oil
spillispeak with NOAA SCientists working on the spilli learn about the General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn about the
NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity database; and develop a broader understanding of how to apply these forecasting and modeling tools to
oil and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an opportunity to discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport models related to the
Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on the status of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico.
2} Names of at least three hotels so that we can research rates.
Silver Cloud Hotel - University. http://v.'\YW.silvercloud.comluniversity.hlm
50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:

Fyi, see additional information requested by Bahamas and the explanation about why they need it. Thanks
Subject:
From:
"Moppert, Brooke S" <MoppertBS@S..1!.lte.gov:>:
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 201010:42:59 -0400
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@,state.gov>, James Turner <James.Tumcr@noaa.gov>
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner <James.Tumeria),noaa.gov>
CC:
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack.WilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubeIJKuv.state.gov>
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail chain below) -they would like to have a SChedule of training, a description of the training and what
skills the trainee would obtain at the end of the training.
This may seem like a lot tD ask of NOAA, but the Bahamian government must have this information in order to justify the expense to Parliament. The Prime Minister
has currently banned all governmenttravel as a cost-saving maneuver (there are hard economic times here as well). Therefore, anything you can provide with
more detail would go a long way in facilitating this exchange.
Thanks,
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
Nassau, The Bahamas
mQPpertbs@Sti!te.gov
From: Carol Albury [mailto:c

To: Moppert, Brooke 5; Carolann albury; C Albury
Subject: RE: TEOiNlCAL ASSISTANCE
There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would be a schedule of training which is to take place over the duration of say 4
2of3
9/27/20102:09 PM
009582
[Fwd: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assist. ..
weeks, A brief on what the technical person(s) who is receiving the training would be capable of performing as a result of the training.
Regards
carolann albury
Director,
From:
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,
In reference to our conversation concerning the above captioned, I am advised by Captain Russell to submit communications regarding costing for
our technical officer to take advantage of the technical assistance being offered by The US through the NOAA office. I suppose the office is located
at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif Project Office/National Weather Service).
Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per diem, ground transportation, round trip airfare and communications, grateful if
you would provide the following information which would help determining cost implications:
Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while my budget has been slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS Centre
and the MET Department as very important and essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill particularly in our regton.
Your kind aSSistance is most appreCiated.
Regards
carolann albury
Director,
Ballamas National Geographic Information Systems (BNGIS) Centre

Content-Type:
message/rfc822
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military Nexus].eml C
E
d'
7bit
ontent- nco mg:
~,- URGENT
PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program Mil~my Nexus,eml----,-------- ------ ~-~----------- ------ ---,. -----,----.
Content-Type:
message/rfc822
NT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military Nexus.eml C
E
d'
7bit
ontent- nco 109:
30f3
9/27/20102:09 PM
RE: FW: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling
009583
I
Vir /
'
Roger L. Parsons
CAPT, NOAA (ret.)
(c) 202-297-9182
-----Original Message----From: Andy.Armstrong@noaa.gov [mailto:Andy.Armstrong@noaa.gov]
To: Roger L. Parsons; Parsons, Roger
Subject: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling
Hi Roger,
As you know, Larry and Tom Weber here at the Joint Hydrographic Center
have been helping in the processing of acoustic and water sample data
related to submerged oil and gas around the spill site. They and some
of the NOAA group trying to monitor and track oil in the water column
are getting desperately frustrated by the lack of ship assets for this
effort, particularly since their ability to connect the indications of a
subsurface plume to the well may be disappearing soon if the capping is
successful. Would you be willing to chat on the phone (5- 10 min) about
shi.p tasking this afternoon or tomorrow morning?
If you can't get free for a call, it won't hurt my feelings.
Best,
Andy
20f2
9/27/20102:09 PM
Re: FW: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling
009584
Subject: Re: FW: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling

From: Andy Armstrong <Andy.Armstrong@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:50:30 -0400
CC: "Parsons, Roger" <Roger.L.Parsons@uscg.mil>
Many Thanks, Mark
(and personal thanks for the immense effort I know you are putting into this whole
event)
We feel this is as much or more response and assessment as research, but
appreciate the need to balance and coordinate with a wide range of activities and
ongoing missions.
Best Regards,
--Andy
On 7/13/2010 9:36 AM, Mark.W.Miller wrote:
j Andy,
,1
iI
know Steve Murawski who is heading up the "Science Box" for NOAA's response to
!DWH has developed a system for folks to submit their research requests which
will be coordinated with other NOAA activities. Also I have sent Sam Walker a
1 note asking what the path is for Unified Area Command for handling these
requests.
1 Mark
!
!
r Parsons, Roger wrote:

$
I Mark
- Andy is the co-director of the NOAA/UNH Joint Hydrographic Center. He

his UNH counterpart, Dr. Larry Mayer, have had little success outside
! ! their initial use of NOAA Ships GUNTER and THOMAS JEFFERSON in securing
i I subsequent NOAA ship time to continue their work on acoustically analyzing the
l! subsurface plume. Is this work important to the Flow Rate Technical Group in
helping to establish the overall oil budget and if so, any suggestions for how
t~e FRTG might lend their support to JHC's efforts to secure additional ship
j
! I and
II
II
i
I Andy
! t~me?
I
l
!l
11.
- Mark is with OR&R's Emergency Response Division and is one of the NOAA
reps on the NIC Interagency Solutions Team here at USCG HQ. Among the many
countermeasures.
Roger
Vir,
II
. Roger L. Parsons
APT, NOAA (ret.)
1
II
-----Original Message----From: Andy.Armstrong@noaa.gov [mailto:Andy.Armstrong@noaa.govl Sent: Monday,

. July 12, 2010 5:02 PM
. To: Roger L. Parsons; Parsons, Roger
I
lof2
9/27/20102:09 PM
Re: FW: NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling
l! Subject:
1 Hi
009585
,I
I'
NOAA Ships for Deepwater sampling
Roger t
As you know t Larry and Tom Weber here at the Joint Hydrographic Center have
been helping in the processing of acoustic and water sample data related to
submerged oil and gas around the spill site. They and some of the NOAA group
trying to monitor and track oil in the water column are
ing desperately
frustrated by the lack of ship assets for this effort, particularly since
i their ability to connect the indications of a subsurface plume to the well may
be disappearing soon if the capping is successful. Would you be willing to
ii chat on the phone (5- 10 min) about ship tasking this afternoon or tomorrow
I I morning?
1
i
I
I
1\
Ii
-~
If you can't
free for a call, it won't hurt my feelings.
j 'I !~~~'
!
~
Andrew A. Armstrong, Capt. NOAA (Ret.)

Co-Director
NOAA!UNH Joint Hydrographic Center
Chase Ocean Engineering Bldg24 Colovos Road
Durham, NH 03824-3525
Visit our website at
2of2
9/27/20102:09 PM
009586
[Fwd: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Teclmical Assist...
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military Nexus])]
Date: Tue, 13 Jul2010 12:27:19 -0400
To: William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Glen Watabayashi
<Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>
CC: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>, James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
Folks,
A minor twist to the forthcoming Bahamian visit to Seattle has arisen. As you may recall, Debbie and Bushy have agreed to host a
Bahamian Scientist in Seattle for 30 days starting in two weeks. Expenses for this visit are being covered by DoD/Northcom. As a
result, Northcom is requesting a Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF) representative accompany the Bahamian scientist in Seattle
for the 4-week stint. More information on this request can be found below, but I am not sure this will cause a significant change in our
plans for the visit other than we need to find a space for two visitors to sit in the war room. Their mission will be the same - training on
NOAA oil spill modeling tools and techniques.
Please let me know by COB today if you have any major reservations or concerns with this change in plans.
Thanks very much!
--Brendan
- - Original Message - Subject:[Fwd: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military Nexus]]
Date:Tue, 13 Jul 201009:42:51 -0400
From:James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
To:Glen Watabayashi <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>
CC:Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>, '"AllIson.Reed@noaa.gov''' <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>.
"'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov''' <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>. Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Hi,
Fyi, got your name from Debbie's out of office message.
Subject: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military Nexus]
Date: Tue. 13 Jul2010 09:33:47 -0400
To: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>. Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>
CC: "'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov''' <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>. "'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov''' <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>, Mark W
Miller <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>
Brendan/Debbie,
Thanks
Subject: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military Nexus
From: "Mop pert, Brooke S" <MoppertBS@state.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
To: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>. "Sykes. Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>. "Kim, Elizabeth AS (OES)"
<KimEAB@state.gov>, "Colon, Frances A (WHA)" <ColonFA@state.gov>
CC: Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov. Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov, Allison.Reed@noaa.gov, Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov.
MarkW.Miller@noaa.gov, "Dubel. Jefferson K" <DubeIJK@state.gov:>. "Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD USNORTHCOM HOs IC
DOS" <Susan.Reinert@northcom.mil>. Janice.Smith@tcsc.southcom.mil
NORTHCOM, as you all know, has generously agreed to fund the technical aSSistance program for one Bahamian scientist at the end of this month at 'lour
Seattle Headquarters. However, in order to fund this opportunity, NORTHCOM has requested that there be a "military Nexus."
This "nexus" would consist of a Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF) representative accompanying the Bahamian SCientist for the four-week program. The
RBDF officer would also have some scientific background and would apply the information learned to disaster management. NORTHCOM would cover
.
Before I proceed with making arrangements, I would like to request your assistance/cooperation in accommodating the RBDF officer, and to allow both the
Bahamian scientist/RBOF officer to take two days in the middle of their four-week program (dates of your choosing) to travel to NORTHCOM Headquarters in
Colorado (expenses also paid by NQRTHCOM).
lof4
9/27/20]02:10 PM
009587
Thanks,
Brooke
From: James Tumer [mailto:James.Tumer@noaa.gov]

To: Moppert, Brooke S; Sykes, Sherry Z; Kim, Elizabeth AS (OES); Colon, Frances A (WHA)
Cc: 'Srendan.Bray@noaa.gov'; 'debbie.payton@noaa.gov'; 'Aliison.Reed@noaa.gov'; 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'; 'M!lrk.W.Miller@noaa.gov'
Responses to Brooke's visit logistics questions. Please note, if current OMB restrictions on discussing the loop current do not change prior to a visa. we will develop
appropriate guidance.

To: James Tumer <James.Tumer@noaa.gov>
Cc: Debbie payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>; 'Ailison.Reed@noaa.gov' <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>; 'Pamela.Tosdlik@noaa.gov'
<Pamela.Toschiknoaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jun 2408:26:46 2010
Dr Turner,
Please find below the OR&R response to Embassy Nassau's questions on logistics for the trip to Seattle. I've also included an answer to their
2nd round of questions re: contents of a 4 week training course. As you will see below, we are not thinking of this visit as a formal training,
but it will be a great learning opportunity for the right candidate.
We do not have a speCific 4 week training course to offer. The 4 week time frame came in response to one of the original questions asked by
Embassy Nassau following our initial briefing to them in early June. If an experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of
ocean observation 1 modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person to gain a basic understanding of our oil fate and trajectory modeling
approach.
Division. The visitor will have the opportunity to observe the development of daily fate and trajectory models for the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill;speak with NOAA scientists working on the spill; learn about the General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn
about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity database; and develop a broader understanding of how to apply these forecasting and
modeling tools to oil and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an opportunity to discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport
models related to the Deepwater Horizon, and receive dally updates on the status of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico.
Silver Cloud Hotel University. http://v>,\\w.silvercloud.com!universitv.htm
Watertown Hotel. http://'wwwwatertownseattle.com/
Travel Lodge Seattle University. travelodgeseattleuniversity.com
10-20 USD. Recommend renting
a car if you are staying more than a few days.

50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:
Fy~ see additional infonnation requested by Babamas and the explanation about why they need it. Thanks
Subject:

From:
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 0400
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" :<SykesSZ@~ate.gov>, James Turner <James.Tumer@noaa.gov>
To:
20f4
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009588
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@State.gov>, James Turner <James.Tumer@noaa.gov>

CC:
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJGfalstate.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubelJK@state.gov>
Jim: The Bahamians have one add itional request (see e-mail chain below) - they would like to have a schedule of training. a description of the training and
what skills the trainee would obtain at the end of the training.
This may seem like a lot to ask 'of NOAA, but the Bahamian government must have this information In order to justify the expense to Parliament. The Prime
Minister has currently banned ail government travel as a cost-saving maneuver (there are hard economic times here as well). Therefore. anything you can
Thanks.
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
.Economic Officer
Nassau, The Bahamas
moppertbs@state.gov
From: carol Albury [mailto:calbury@

sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:20 AM
To: Moppert, Brooke S; Carolann albury; CAlbury
There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would be a schedule of training which is to take place over the duration of
say 4 weeks. A brief on what the technical person(s) who is receiving the training would be capable of performing as a result of the training.
Regards
carolann albury
Director,
From:calbury@
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,

In reference to our conversation concerning the above captlom;id, I am advised by Captain Russell to submit communications regarding
costing for our technical officer to take advantage of the technical aSSistance being offered by The US through the NOAA office. I suppose
the Office is located at 7600 Sand POint Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA Prlbilif Project Office/National Weather Service).
Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per diem, ground transportation, round trip airfare and communications,
grateful If you would provide the following information which would help determining cost Implications:
1) NOAA to confirm that It Is a four week training and location of NOAA Office:
captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while my budget has been slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS
Centre and the MET Department as very important and essentall for monitoring the Impact of the BP oil Spill particularly in our region.
30f4
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009589

Regards
=================
carolann albury
Director,

Hotmall: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
Brendan M. Bray <brendan.bray@noaa.gov> ;

., __ ~OAA - National Ocean Service
_._.j
I[FWd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military NeXUS].emll Content-Type: messagefrfc822
URGENT PLEASE READ Bahamas Technical Assistance Program Military Nexus,eml
_._--_ ......_--_.- - -
'.--.-
-._ .... _., .....-._--_ .._.
__
.. -. --------------
PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program Military Nexus.eml Content-Type: messagefrfc822
4of4
9/27/20]02:10 PM
Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool
009590
Subject: Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:05:23 -0600
To: Sean CDR O'Brien <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, Stephen E Hammond
<sehammon@usgs.gov>, Amy LT McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Bill Lehr
<BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>
Greetings,
You all may have noticed a couple of minor changes in the Oil Budget Tool as of
yesterday like the color changes in the table keyed to the barrel graph. We still
need to address the issue of recording daily values associated with inland
cleanup operations and factor those into the oil budget calculation, and I would
like to schedule a call to discuss and make sure we are all on the same page.
I've included those I think need to be involved, but if there are others please
let me know or otherwise help coordinate getting them involved.
We have been exposed to some debris cleanup work through Jaqui Michel and the
work Research Planning, Inc. has been doing. We know about 5 variables they are
recording and are still working to get some form of the existing database so we
can see how it may be incorporated technically into the oil budget tool:
-
Length along shore where tar balls/debris are observed

Width across shore where tar balls/debris are observed
Average number of tar balls within an area
Average size of tar balls
Size of largest tar ball
We are not clear on a number of points:

- Will this information be fed to the Coast Guard at the NIC and then entered
into the tool or do we need to come up with some other input or data sharing
method?
- Are there any other similar cleanup methods being executed by another party
that need to be recorded?
- How will these variables factor into the oil budget calculation?
We have also had a small amount of communication about beach skimming operations
and have discussed a method of measuring total square meters covered and a
sampling mechanism to determine a probable amount of oil. We are also not clear
on whether or not this is a viable method to pursue, where the data would be
coming from in this case, and how it will factor into the oil budget calculation.
We have not yet determined a method or means for capturing the total amount of
oil collected from boom.
As you can see, there are quite a number of unknowns, at least as far as our
project team is concerned. Some or all of these details may have already been
worked out by other parties, and we just need to get on the same page. I have
availability for a phone calIon these matters at the following times today:
1000
1300
1430
1630
EDT/OaOO
EDT/llOO
EDT/1230
EDT/1430
MDT
MDT
MDT
MDT
Please let me know if any of these times will work today. Thank you, and we look
forward to determining an appropriate course.
lof2
9/27/2010 2: 10 PM
009591
Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool
<. ( (<----<. (<----<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
2 of2
9/27/20102: 10 PM
RE: Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool
009592
Subject: RE: Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 201009:12:32 -0400
To: sbristol@usgs.gov, "O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, "Hammon,
Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller - NOAA
Good Morning,
Looks like we do have a lot to discuss. My availability is either 1000 or 1630,
but understand everybody is busy, so will be as flexible as possible.
Thank you,
Amy
-----Original Message----From: sbristol@usgs.gov
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2
To: O'Brien, Sean CDRi Hammon, Steve; McElroy, Amy LTi Bill Lehr; Mark Miller NOAA
Cc: Tim Kern; David Mack
Greetings,
need to address the issue of recording
values associated with inland
let me know or otherwise help coordinate
them involved.
We have been exposed to some debris
work through Jaqui Michel and the
- Length along shore where tar balls/debris are observed
- Average number of tar balls within an area
- Average size of tar balls
- Size of largest tar ball
method?
sampling mechanism to determine a probable amount of oil. We are also not clear
coming from in this case, and how it will factor into the oil budget calculation.
lof2
9/27/2010 2:10 PM
009593
1000
1300
1430
1630
EDT/OSOO
EDT/1100
EDT/1230
EDT/1430
MDT
MDT
MDT
MDT
<. ( ( ----<. (( ----<. ((

Sky Bristol
<. ((
2 of2
----<. ((
9/27/2010 2:10 PM
009594

From: "O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 201009:39:28 -0400
To: "McElroy, Amy L1'" <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, sbristol@usgs.gov, "Hammon, Steve"
<sehammon@usgs.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller - NOAA
CC: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.goV>
Sky:
Thanks for doing such a great job with this project. We're using the tool a lot
now ... sending to Governor's
answering congressional inquiries, etc.
This time will work for me: 1630 EDT/1430 MDT
Sean O'Brien, CDR
(c)
-----Original Message----From: McElroy, Amy LT
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:13 AM
To: sbristo1@usgs.gov; O'Brien, Sean CDR; Hammon, Steve; Bill Lehr; Mark Miller NOAA
Good Morning,
Thank you,
Amy
-----Original Message----From: sbristol@usgs.gov [mailto:sbristol@usgs.gov)
To: O'Brien, Sean CDR; Hammon, Steve; McElroy, Amy LT; Bill Lehr; Mark Miller NOAA
Cc: Tim Kern: David Mack
Greetings,
need to address the issue of recording daily values associated with inland
let me know or otherwise help coordinate getting them involved.
recording and are still working to
some form of the existing database so we
lof2
9/27/20102:10 PM
009595


into the tool or do we need to corne up with some other input or data sharing
method?
How will these variables factor into the oil budget calculation?
sampling mechanism to determine a probable amount of oil. We are also not clear'
corning from in this case, and how it will factor into the oil budget calculation.
ect team is concerned. Some or all of these details may have already been
availability for a phone call on these matters at the following times today:
1000
1300
1430
1630
EDT/0800
EDT/IICO
EDT/1230
EDT/1430
MDT
MDT
MDT
MDT
<. ((
~~~~<.
((
----<. ((
Sky Bristol
<. ((
2 of2
--~-<.
-<. ((
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009596
[Fwd: RE: Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool]
Subject: [Fwd: RE: Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool)
From: "Mark.WMille~' <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:00:02 -0400
To: Amy McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>
Now doesn't that make you feel comfortable?
- - Original Message - - Subject:RE: Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool
Date:Wed, 14 Jul 201009:39:28 -0400
From:O'Brien, Sean CDR <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>
To:McElroy, Amy LT <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, sbristol@usgs.gov, Hammon, Steve <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>,
Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>
CC:Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>
References:<288C84CA-69DE-4B34-87E5-C335A 1A23BA9@usgs.gov> <4033C8D3769E554B8368D690E5F4C4EDOCC4318F@emo-exmb-m103.main.ads.uscg.mil>
Sky:
Thanks for doing such a great job \oJith this project.
We're using the tool a lot now ... sending to Governor's staff, answering congressional i
This time will work for me: 1630 EDT/1430 MDT
Sean O'Brien, CDR

National Incident Conunand
-----Origina1 Message----From: McElroy, Amy LT
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9: 13 AM

To: sbristol@usgs.gov; O'Brien, Sean CDR: Hammon, Steve; Bill Lehr; Mark Miller - NOAA

Good Morning,
Looks like we do have a lot to discuss. My availability is either 1000 or 1630, but understand everybody is busy, so will be as flexible as }:
Thank you,
/lJny
-----Original Message----From: bristol@usgs~ (~i.lL~!~ris~_2J. ~~!...9.~'2'yJ
To: O'Brien, Sean CDR; Hammon, Steve; McElroy, Amy LT; Bill Lehr; Mark Miller - NOAA
Greetings,
You all may have noticed a couple of minor changes in the Oil Budget Tool as of yesterday like the color changes in the table keyed to the ba
We have been exposed to some debris cleanup work through Jaqui Michel and the work Research Planning, Inc. has been doing. We know about 5 va
-

Average number of tar balls wi thin an area
- Will this information be fed to the Coast Guard at the Nrc and then entered into the tool or do we need to come up with some other input
- Are there any other similar cleanup methods being executed by another party that need to be recorded'?
We have also had a small amount of communication about beach skimming operations and have discussed a method of measuring total square
01
meter~
As you can see, there are quite a number of unknowns, at least as far as our project team is concerned. Some or all of these details may have
1000
1300
1430
1630
EDT/0800
EDT/l100
EDT/1230
EDT/1430
MDT
MDT
MDT
MDT
Please let me know if any of these times will work today. Thank you, and we look forward to determining an appropriate course.
<. 111<----<. 111<<<----<. 111<<<
Sky Bristol
2bri_5tol@If~t?!:
<.
1 of 1
.....
<.
. ... <.
9/27/20102:10 PM
Re: Wand Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool
009597
Subject: Re: Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 201008:04:52 -0600
To: "O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>
CC: "McElroy, Amy LT' <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, "Hammon, Steve"
<sehammon@usgs.gov>, Bill Lehr <BilIoLehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller - NOAA
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>
Great! I'm going to schedule for 1630 EDT via the following conference line:
712-432-1601
859734#
Hopefully a few more folks can make this call. Please pass the information on to
anyone else who should attend and help chart a course on inland
variables. If we can at least scope out the overall picture and determine where
measurements and values will be coming from, we can continue working on the
details with other parties.
Thank you.
<. (( ----<. (( (<------<. {( {<

Sky Bristol
<. (( ----<. (( ----<. ((

On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:39 AM, O'Brien, Sean CDR wrote:
; Sky:
~
t Thanks for doing such a
job with this project. We're using the tool a
!, lot now ... sending to Governor's staff, answering congressional inquiries, etc.
,
t This
time will work for me: 1630 EDT/1430 MDT
! Sean
0'
~
i
CDR
! National Incident
I Situation Unit
Command
sor
c)
iI
II -----Original
Message----From: McElroy, Amy LT
I Sent:
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:13 AM

f To: sbristol@usgs.gov; O'Brien, Sean CDR; Hammon, Steve;. Bill Lehr; Mark Miller
! - NOAA
! Cc: Tim Kern; David Mack
I
I
Good Morning,

Thank you,
Amy
lof3
9/27/2010 2: 10 PM
Re: Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool
009598
-----Original Message----From: sbristol@usgs.gov [mailto:sbristol@usQ.s.gov]

To: O'Brien, Sean CDR; Hammon, Steve; McElroy, Amy LTi Bill Lehri Mark Miller NOAA
Greet
yesterday like the color changes in the table keyed to the barrel graph. We
still need to address the issue of recording daily values associated with
inland cleanup operations and factor those into the oil budget calculation, and
I would like to schedule a call to discuss and make sure we are all on the same
page. I've included those I think need to be involved, but if there are others
please let me know or otherwise help coordinate getting them involved.
along shore where tar balls/debris are observed
- Size of largest tar ball
method?
We have also had a small amount of communication about beach skimming
operations and have discussed a method of measuring total square meters covered
and a sampling mechanism to determine a probable amount of oil. We are also not
clear on whether or not this is a viable method to pursue, where the data would
be coming from in this case, and how it will factor into the oil budget
calculation.
1000
1300
I 1430
11630
I
I
~
MDT
MDT
MDT
MDT
Please let me know if any of these times will work today. Thank you, and we
look forward to determining an appropriate course.
!i <. ((
2 of3
EDT/0800
EDT/lIDO
EDT/1230
EDT/1430
(<~~--<.
(( (<----<. ((
9/27/20102:10 PM
009599
Re: Inland Oil Cleanup in the Oil Budget Tool
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
I
<. (
30f3
--
{<----<.
II
!
I
9/27/20102:10 PM
009600
RE: OIL SPILUOMB REQUEST - Views on HR5629 Oil Spill Acco...
Subject: RE: OIL SPILUOMB REQUEST - Views on HR5629 Oil Spill Accountability and
Environmental Protection Act of 2010
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:59:43 -0700
To: "Velde, Blake" <blake.velde@dm.usda.gov>
CC: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Joseph, Emily A" <emilyjoseph@ios.doLgov>, "Cesnik,
Catherine" <catherine_cesnik@ios.doi.gov>
Mark Miller and Emily Joseph. And Catherine Cesnik is coming back next week.
NIC-IASG
-----Original Message----From: Blake.Ve1de@dm.usda.gov [mailto:Blake.Velde@dm.usda.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:15 PM
To: Styer-Gee, Brenda; Adam, Kathleen
Cc: Brown, Baron CDR; Lundgren, Scott; Cesnik, Catherine
Subject: FW: OIL SPILL/OMB REQUEST - Views on HR5629 Oil Spill Accountability and
Importance: High
Who's there for NOAA and Interior - I had objections .. will send my comments USDA
is forwarding .. There's also a significant change to the legal authority/basis
for NRDA - rebuttable presumption to judicial review on the record. We didn't
comment on that though on the advice of counsel
Thanks!
Blake
***********************************
Blake T. Velde, Sr. Environmental Scientist
USDA NRT Member
DM/OHSEC
1400 Independence Av SW
Washington, DC
20250
***********************************
From: Pope-Trice, Karolynne [mailto:kpt@obpa.usda.gov]
10f2
9/27/20102:10 PM
009601
RE: OIL SPILUOMB REQUEST - Views on HR5629 Oil Spill Aceo ...

To: Repass, Todd; Jett@usda.govi Myrick, Pauline; O'Brien, Doug;
Jennifer.Yezak@usda.gov; Velde, Blake; Ruth.Lodder2@usda.gov
Cc: Nelson, Chris; Bice, Don; Mack, Vandetta; Deepwater; Hetrick, Julie
Subject: OIL SPILL/OMB REQUEST - Views on HR5629 Oil Spill Accountability and
Importance: High
-OMB REQUESTOBPA DEADLINE: 4:30 P.M. TODAY, WEDNESDAY,
July 14, 2010
Lead: Deepwater Team
Please review the attached, a meeting with House leadership on this bill is
anticipated tomorrow. OMB has requested comments no later than 10:00 A.M.
THURSDAY and has indicated that they will be unable to take comments after the
deadline.
Please provide comments to me, via email, and cc Julie Hetrick as I will be out
of the office tomorrow. Thank you for your prompt attentionJ
Karolynne Pope-Trice
Program Analyst
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
Legislative and Regulatory Staff
email: kpt@obpa.usda.gov
20f2
9/27/20102:10 PM
Oil Budget Tool - updated
009602
Subject: Oil Budget Tool - updated

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:07:22 -0600
To: Sean CDR O'Brien- <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, Stephen Hammond
<seharnmon@usgs.gov>, "Lauer, Daniel LCDR" <DanieI.D.Lauer@uscg.mil>
cc: Amy LT McElroy <Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
You will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out now with the changes we
discussed this afternoon:
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and a
cumulative total shown in the executive summary for reporting. I added a note
about this variable that comes up in the report. If you all ever want to change
any of the notes, please let us know and we'll walk you through how to do that on
your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a group that allows you to
edit the various annotations available through the application and in the reports.
- Export to Excel feature was added to the Daily Variables page.
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get from
Jaqui Michel and that particular group. We'll rely on anything additional in the
way of inland recovery data availability to come to us from LT McElroy or other
USCG personnel.
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the
. In
particular, let us know if the new Inland,Recovery report component looks okay.
Thank you.
<. ( ( ----<. ( ( ----<. ( ( (<

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.qov
<. (( ----<. (( (<----<. ((
1 ofl
9/27/20102: 10 PM
Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated
009603
Subject: Re: Oil .Budget Tool - updated

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:19:42 -0400
Sky,
I would like to get read access accounts for our field SSCs. What is the best
format for me to present the list of names and emails (there are about 20 of
them) .
Mark
Sky Bristol wrote:
! You will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out now with the changes we
l - New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and a
1 cumulative total shown in the executive summary for reporting. I added a note
1 about this variable that comes up in the report. If you all ever want to change
! any of the notes, please let us know and we'll walk you through how to do that
10n your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a group that allows you
! to edit the various annotations available through the application and in the
i reports.
~
!-
Export to Excel feature was added to the Daily Variables page.
1
lAs we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get
; from Jaqui Michel and that particular group. We'll rely on anything additional
. in the way of inland recovery data availability to come to us from LT McElroy or
other USCG personnel.
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the.application. In
particular, let us know if the new Inland Recovery report component looks okay.
Thank you.
<. ((----<. ((----<. ((

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. (( ----<. (( ----<. ((
1 of 1
9/27/20102:10 PM
009604
Subject: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:02:00 -0600
CC: "Administrator (USGS-JIRA)" <myusgs@usgs.gov>
No problem. You can reply all to this email (including the CC to myusgs@usgs.gov)
with full names and email addresses. Each person will
a separate email with
their account information.
We discussed this before you got on the call, but the
will be down from
0700-1900 on Sunday, July 25 for a planned move to a new data center we have had
in the works. We offered to spin up a contingency plan for alternate access
during that time, but CDR O'Brien felt that the downtime would not be a problem.
Let us know if you feel different.
P.S. What does SSC stand for?
<. (( (<----<. ((
----<. ((
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
( (
On Jul 14, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
;
f Sky,
i
~
I would like to get read access accounts for our field SSCs. What is the best
I format for me to present the list of names and emails (there are about 20 of
I, them).
%
Mark
! Sky
Bristol wrote:
I I You will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out now with the changes we
i I discussed this afternoon:
1i
New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input
Ii and a cumulative total shown in the executive summary for reporting. I added
I a note about this variable that comes up in the report. If you all ever want
to change any of the notes, please let us know and we'll walk you through how
to do that on your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a group
'that allows you to edit the various annotations available through the
II application and in the reports.
!I I
II
II -
Export to Excel feature was added to the Daily Variables page.
I
I
I
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get
from Jaqui Michel and that particular group. We'll rely on anything
additional in the way of inland recovery data availability to come to us from
I LT McElroy or other USCG personnel.
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the application. In

let us know if the new Inland Recovery report component looks
, okay.
il!" particular,
II
~
!
lof2
Thank you.
9/27/20102:10 PM
009605
< (( ----<. (( (<----<. ((
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
1< (( ----<. (( ----<. (( (<
I,
2 of2
9/27/20102:10 PM
009606
Subject: Re: Oil Budget Tool- updated

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 201020:15:42 -0400
Thanks Sky. The down time is not a problem. SSC stands for Scientific Support Coordinator
and they serve as a science adviser to the FOSC during spills. We have a lead and deputy
SSC in each command post. I will send out the email tomorrow.
Mark
Sky Bristol wrote:
No problem. You can
all to this email (including the CC to
myusgs@usgs.gov) with full names and email addresses. Each person will get a
separate email with their account information.
We discussed this before you got on the call, but the system will be down
from 0700-1900 on Sunday, July 25 for a planned move to a new data center we
have had in the works. We offered to spin up a contingency plan for
alternate access during that time, but CDR O'Brien felt that the downtime
would not be a problem. Let us know if you feel different.
<. (( (<----<. (( ----<. (( (<

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. (( (<----<. (( ----<. (( (<
Sky,
I would like to get read access accounts for our field SSCs. What is
the best format for me to
the list of names and emails (there
are about 20 of them).
Mark
Sky Bristol wrote:
You will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out now with the
changes we discussed this afternoon:
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables
for input and a cumulative total shown in the executive summary
for reporting. I added a note about this variable that comes up in
the report. If you all ever want to change any of the notes,
please let us know and we'll walk you through how to do that on
your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a group that
lof2
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009607
allows you to edit the various annotations available through the

application and in the reports.
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data
we can get from Jaqui Michel and that particular group. We'll rely
on anything additional in the way of inland recovery data
availability to come to us from LT McElroy or other USCG personnel.
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the
application. In particular, let us know if the new Inland Recovery
report component looks okay.
Thank you.
<. (( ----<. (( (<----<. ((

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. (( ----<. (( ----<. ((
20f2
9/27/20102:10 PM
Fw: Oil Budget Tool
009608
Subject: Fw: Oil Budget Tool

From: Gary Ott <
@genwest.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 07:50:33 -0700
From: Gary Ott [mailto:

@genwest.com]
To: mark.miller@noaa.gov
Sent: Thu, 15 Jur 2010 05:57:57 -0700
Mark,
Would you send a copy of that Oil Budget Tool also to Dean Dale of GEI\lWEST who had worked on such a
tool for many years.
His suggestions should be as valuable as those of the
sse team.
He is at
@genwest.com
Thanks,
Gary
lofl
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009610

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:49:35 -0600
CC: "Hammon, Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark
The best answer to this comes from the Mass Balance document Bill Lehr and the
team put together. You'll find a link to download this document if you
click on the About link in the application. The dynamics of dispersed oil, the
dispersant effectiveness fractions used and the reasoning behind them, and the
overall algorithm are discussed on pages 6-8. Some of the background information
can get a bit complex, so I'll offer a simple interpretation that might work. I
would definitely encourage you to consult with Mark Miller or Bill Lehr from NOAA
to get further clarification.
An estimation of a 20:1 dosage of chemical dispersant is used for successful
chemical dispersion. This is multiplied by an effectiveness fraction (surface or
subsurface) based on the expert opinion of the group that Bill consulted in the
development of the overall formula and then
ied by the amount of
dispersant used (surface or subsurface) to produce a figure in barrels of oil
dispersed (to droplets smaller than 100 micron). The NIST group put together a
method of statistically quanti
and analyzing the uncertainty introduced
through the range of effectiveness factors to provide probable values of
dispersed oil for both the high and low flow estimates. The Mass Balance document
summarizes the different factors that go
determining just how effective
dispersants should be based on the best available knowledge of how they operate.
<. (( ----<. (( ----<. ((

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.qov
<. ( ( ----<. ( ( ----<. ( ( (<
i Sky:
i
I When you have 5 mins; quick question on the tool ...

i
! What is your algorithm for sub-sea and surface dispersants? - just want to make
sure I have it correct.
!
t
Sean O'Brien, CDR

c)
-----Original Message----From: sbristol@usgs.gov[mailto:sbristol@usgs.gov]

I Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:07 PM
To: O'Brien, Sean CDR; Hammon, Steve; Lauer, Daniel LCDR
Cc: McElroy, Amy LTi Mark Miller - NOAA
I Subject: Oil Budget Tool - updated
i
11
,i
I
You will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out now with the changes we
lof2
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009611
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily'Variables for input and
a cumulative total shown in the executive summary for reporting. I added a note
about this variable that comes up in the report. If you all ever want to change
any of the notes, please let us know and we'll walk you through how to do that
on your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a group that allows
you to edit the various annotations available through the application and in
the reports.
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get
from Jaqui Michel and that particular group. We'll rely on anything additional
in the way of inland recovery data availability to come to us from LT McElroy
or other USCG personnel.
particular, let us know if the new Inland Recovery report component looks okay.
Thank you.
<. (( ----<. (( ----<. (( (<

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
20f2
9/27/20102:10 PM
009612

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:48:28 -0700
CC: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, "Hammon, Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Mark
Sean,
The sub-surface natural dispersion is calculated by applying the
method
(commonly used for surface natural dispersion) to the plume where members of the
FRTG Plume team estimated the energy dissipation rate of the flow. We don't have
any good numbers on dispersion due to the addition of chemical dispersants other
the
observations (reduction in surface slick above the source) and some
very limited water sampling.
Therefore we used the ITOPF 20:1 ratio for
successful dispersant applications.
For surface oil, we assumed no natural dispersion since the oil rapidly
emulsifies. A SINTEF study indicated that the emulsions are weakly di
with the addition of chemical dispersants so we used a reduced ratio for the
surface oil that is sprayed. or, equivalently, multiplying by an effectiveness
factor less than 1.
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
On 7/15/10 9:49 AM, Sky Bristol wrote:
best answer to this comes from the Mass Balance document Bill Lehr and the
1plume team put together. You'll find a link to download this document if you
i click on the About link in the application. The dynamics of dispersed oil, the
effectiveness fractions used and the reasoning behind them, and the
I overall
are discussed on pages 6-8. Some of the background information
can get a bit complex, so I'll offer a simple interpretation that might work. I
! would
encourage you to consult with Mark Miller or Bill Lehr from
! NOAA to get further clarification.
! The
Ii An
estimation of a 20:1 dosage of chemical dispersant is used for successful

ion. This is multiplied by an effectiveness fraction (surface or
! subsurface) based on the expert opinion of the group that Bill consulted in the
I development of the overall formula and then multiplied by the amount of
! dispersant used (surface or subsurface) to produce a figure in barrels of oil
dispersed (to droplets smaller than 100 micron). The NIST group put together a
I method of
quantifying and analyzing the uncertainty introduced
through the range of effectiveness factors to provide probable values of
dispersed oil for both the high and low flow estimates. The Mass Balance
document summarizes the different factors that go into determining just how
effective dispersants should be based on the best available knowledge of how
they operate.
I chemical
I
!
I<. ( ( ----<. ( ( (<----<. ( ( (<

1
Sky Bristol
!
I
1< (( ----<. (( ----<. (( (<
I On Jul 15,
2010, at 10:15 AM, O'Brien, Sean CDR wrote:
J
10f2
9/27/20102:10 PM
009613
Re: Oil Budget Tool updated
II
Sky:
il When
you have 5 mins; quick question on the tool ...
II What is your algorithm for sub-sea and surface dispersants? - just want to
[ make sure I have it correct.
I,.
I, Sean O'Brien,
i
CDR
I National Incident Command
! i Situation Unit Supervisor
f
'
II
II
,I
I
iI
-----Original Message----sbristol@usgs.gov [mailto:sbristol@usgs.gov)

I
i Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:07 PM
i To: 0' Brien, Sean CDR; Hammon, Steve i Lauer, Daniel LCDR
I
Gc: McElroy, Amy LT; Mark Miller - NOAA
jl,! Subject: Oil Budget Tool - updated
I t You
"
I I From:
I
,
Ii
1
~l;
will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out now with the changes we
i I discussed this afternoon:
II I-a New
Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables
cumulative total shown in the executive summary for reporting.
.
II'
I!
!I
I,
!i
Ii
note about
change any
do that on
allows you
and in the
II -
Export to
for input and

I added a
this variable that comes up in the
. If you all ever want to
of the notes, please let us know and we'll walk you through how to
your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a group that
to edit the various annotations available through the application
reports.
EXC~l
feature was added to the Daily Variables page.
II As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get
! I from Jaqui Michel and that particular group. We'll rely on anything additional
! I in
the way of inland recovery data availability to corne to us from LT McElroy

! I or other USCG personnel.
Ii
t'
jr
III
!i
I!
It
!
!
II
[I
,:,!.

let us know if the new Inland Recovery report component looks
.It'I~,l! particular,
okay.
!, II Thank
II
It <.
I.
(( (<----<. (( (<----<. (( (<

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. ((
2 of2
you.
-<. ((
II
9/27/20102:10 PM
009614
[Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]

Date: Thu, 15 Jul2010 14:04:38 -0400
To: Jordan Stout <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>
- - - Original Message - - Subject:Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated

Date:Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:48:28 -0700
From:BiII Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To:Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov
To:O'Brien, Sean CDR <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>
CC:Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, "Hammon, Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
References :<E91AB69D-0A58-459B-943E-5A 167EB 173A8@usgs.gov> <430EF5E6C 11904498224A1B849D8C81404A6AEB3@emo-exmb-m103. main .ads. uscg. mil> <94D92F9D-819E-4E83-A7C7-52595822F28D@usgs.gov>
Sean,
Delvigne method (commonly used for surface natural dispersion) to the
plume where members of the FRTG Plume team estimated the energy
dissipation rate of the flow. We don't have any good numbers on
dispersion due to the addition of chemical dispersants other the surface
very limited water sampling. Therefore we used the ITOPF 20:1 ratio for
emulsifies. A SINTEF study indicated that the emulsions are weakly
dispersable with the addition of chemical dispersants so we used a
reduced ratio for the surface oil that is sprayed. or, equivalently,
multiplying by an effectiveness factor less than 1.
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
> The best answer to this comes from the Mass Balance document Bill Lehr and the plume team put together. You'll find a link to download
thi~
An estimation of a 20: 1 dosage of chemical dispersant is used for successful chemical dispersion. This is multiplied by an effectiveness fr
> <.
"'''-'''<. ({ ----<.
Sky Bristol
sbr istol@usgs.gov
<
Sky:
When you have 5 mins; quick question on the tool ...
What is your algorithm for sub-sea and surface dispersants? - just want to make sure I have it correct.
Sean O'Brien, CDR

-----Original Message----From: sbristol@usgS.90V Imailto:sbristol@uS9S.90V]

Cc: McElroy, Amy LT; Mark Miller - NOAA
You will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out now with the changes we discussed this afternoon:
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and a cumulative total shown in the executive swnmary for repOl
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get from Jaqui Michel and that particular group. We'll rely on ar
Please continue to provide any feedback on improvlng the application. In particular, let us know if the new Inland Recovery report compone
Thank you.
<. ( ( ... __ ... <. ( ( -_ ...... <. ( ( {<

.
Sky Bristol
{<
1 ofl
9/27/20102:10 PM
009615
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and a cumulative total shown in
the executive summary for reporting. I added a note about this variable that comes up in the report. If you
all ever want to change any of the notes, please let us know and we'll walk you through how to do that on
your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a group that allows you to edit the various annotations
available through the application and in the reports.
,
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get from Jaqui Michel and that
particular group. We'll rely on anything additional in the way of inland recovery data availability to come
to us from LT McElroy or other USCG personnel.
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the application. In particular, let us know if the
new Inland Recovery report component looks okay.
Thank you.
<. ( (----<. (( ----<. ( <<<

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
{<
20f2
9/27/2010 2: 10 PM
009616

From: "Mark. W. Millerll <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:46:37 -0400
To: My USGS <myusgs@usgs.gov>
CC: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Thanks Si. Will do. I will try to send that out this afternoon.
My USGS wrote:
i
Mark
If you can put the list in a spreadsheet we would appreciate it. We need the following information:
.!
First Name
Last Name
e-mail address
Specify the group (Manager, Author, or Reader). I believe you said all will be readers.
Thank you
1
! ------~---------~-----------Sibert (Si) Peterson

!
US Geological Survey
i Regional Geospatiallnformation Office

shpeterson@usgs.gov
Sky Bristol <sbristol@us9S.90v>
To:
fv1ark rvtiller <mari<..w.miller@noaa.gov>
cc;
"Administrator (USGS-JIRA)" <mvusgs@usgs.gov>
Subject:
Re: Oil Budget Tool- updated
07/14/201006:02 PM
No problem. You can reply all to this email (including the CC to myusgs@usgs.qov)with full names and
email addresses. Each person will get a separate email with their account information .
We discussed this before you got on the call, but the system will be down from 0700-1900 on Sunday,
.1 July 25 for a planned move to a new data center we have had in the works. We offered to spin up a
11
Ii
I
contingency plan for alternate access during that time, but CDR O'Brien felt that the downtime would
not be a problem. Let us know if you feel different.
P.S. What does sse stand for?
<. ((
~-~~<.
I,
l
i <. ( ( --~-<.
((
(<~~~~<.
((
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usqs.cov
(<~-~~<.
(( (<
> Sky,
>
> I would like to get read access accounts for our field SSCs. What is the best format for me to
!! present
10f2
the list of names and emails (there are about 20 of them) .
!
!
j
I
9/27/20102:10 PM
009617
>
> Mark
>
> Sky Bristol wrote:
You will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out now with the changes we discussed this
afternoon:
New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and a cumulative total
shown in the executive summary for reporting. I added a note about this variable that comes up in the
report. If you all ever want to change any of the notes, please let us know and we'll walk you through
how to do that on your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a group that allows you to edit
the various annotations available through the application and in the reports.
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get from Jaqui Michel and
that particular group. We'll rely on anything additional in the way of inland recovery data
availability to come to us from LT McElroy or other USCG personnel.
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the application. In particular, let us know if
the new Inland Recovery report component looks okay.
Thank you.
<. ( ( ----<. (( ----<. ( ((<
Sky Bristol
122
<. ( ----<. ( ( ----<. ( ((<
20f2
9/27/2010 2:10 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]
009618
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated)

From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov:>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul2010 15:59:08 -0400
To: Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov
Jordan,
It is a web based tool with a login and pw. I am requesting a=unts for all the SSCs.
Mark
Jordan Stout wrote:
Is the Mass Balance document available? If not me, can RDML Korn see it? I didn't see it attached.
Mark. W. Miller wrote:
Ii
!
- - - Original Message-Subject:Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated

Date:Thu, 15 Jul2010 10:48:28 -0700
From:Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov:>
To:O'Brien, Sean CDR <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>
CC:Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov:>, "Hammon, Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov:>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov:>
References:<E91AB69D-0A58-459B-943E-5A167EB173A8@usgs.gov:> <430EF5E6C11904498224A1B849D8C81404A6AEB3@emo-exmb-m103.main.ads. uscg. mil> <94D92F9D-819E-4E83-A7C7-52595822F28D@usgs.gov:>
I I,
~
II ,'
,I
I, I
I
Sean,
Delvigne method (commonly used for surEace natural dispersion) to the
dissipation rate of the flow~ We don I t have any good numbers on
observations <reduction in surface slick above the source} and some
very limited water sampling. Therefore we used the ITOpr 20:1 ratio for
For surface oil, we assumed no natural
since the oil rapidly
emulsifies. A SINTEr study indicated that
emulsions are weakly
multipl ying by an effecti vene factor less than 1.
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
I
I
I]
I I
I I
I
!
:> The best answer to this comes from the Mass Balance document Bill Lehr and the plume team put together. You'll find a link to dowrllad
>
> An estimation of a 20: 1 dosage of chemical dispersant is used for successful chemical dispersion~ This is multiplied by an
effecTr
<. ( I ----<. I ((<<<----<. (( 1<<<

Sky Bristol
sbr istol@usgs.90\1
>
>
>
II
II
<. (( ----<. II ----<. ( ((<<<
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:15 AM, O'Brien, Sean CDR wrote:
>
>
Sky:
When you have 5 mins; quick question on the tool ..
What is your algorithm for sub-sea. and surface dispersants?
Sean O'Brien, CDR

just want to make sure I have it correct.
iI
--"'--Oriqinal Message-----
,I
From: sbristol@usgs.QOV [mailtc;sbristol@usgs.govJ

Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 20107:07 PM
To: O'Brien, Sean CDRj Hammon, Steve: Lauer, Daniel LCOR

Ce: McElroy, Amy 1.1; Mark Miller - NOAA
'fou will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out now with the changes we discussed this afternoon:
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and.s cumulative total shown in the executive summary
f r
- Expert to Excel Eeature was added to the Paily variabies page,

J
lof2
9/27/20102:10 PM
009619
~~ As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can qet from Jaqui Michel and that particular group. Weill
re1y
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the application. In particular, let us know if the new Inland Recovery repo~t co
Thank you.
<. (( (<_ _<. ( ((<----<. ( 11<<<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usQs.aov
<. (11<<<---<. 1I ----<. (
>
i
I
! I
'I
I !
II
I
I
!
Jordan Stout
Scienti f ic Suppo:::-t Coordinator
Coast Guard Island. Bldg 50-7
3320
24-hour NOAA spill hotllne:
20f2
(206)516-4911
9/27/20102:10 PM
009620
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]

From: Jordan Stout <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul2010 16:15:31 ..()400
To: "'mark.w.miller@noaa.gov''' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: "'jordan.stout@noaa.gov''' <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>
Cool. It seemed that Sky Bristors e-mail mentiored a docunent thai Bill LelY had worked on. Is thai on RL?
Jordan.
(Sent from my Blackberry)

Jordan Stout
Scientific S,""port Coordinator
Coast Guard Islar>:!. Bldg 50-7
Alameda, CA 945015000
24-ho\.l' NOAA spill hotline: (206)526-4911
From: Marl<.W.Milier <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To: Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>

Sent: Thu Jul15 15;59;08 2010
Subject; Re; {Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]
Jordan,
It is a web based tool with a login and pw. I am requesting accounts for ali the SSCs.
Mark
Jordan Stout wrote:
Is the Mass Balance document available? If not me, can RDML Korn see it? I didn't see it attached.
Jordan.
Mark. W.Milier wrote:
Original Message - Subject:Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated

Date:Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:48:28 -0700
From:Bili Lehr <BiILLehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To:8111. Lehr@noaa.gov
To;O'Brien, Sean CDR <Sean.KO'Brien@USCQ.mil>
References:<E91AB69D-OA58-459B-943E-5A167EB 173A8@US9S.g0V> <430EF5E6C11904498224A1B849D8C81404A6AEB3@emo-exmb-m103.main.ads.usCQ .mil> <94D92F9D-819E4E83-A7C7-52595822F28D@usgs.gov>

Delvigoe method (commonly used for surface natural dispersion) to the
observations (reduction in surface slick above the source} and some
For surface
we assumed no natural dispersion since the oil rapidly
emulsifies. A
study indicated that the emulsions are Weakly
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
On 7/15/10 9:49 AM, Sky Bristol
~ The best answer to this comes
wrote:
from the Mass Balance document Bill Lenr and tne plume team put toqether. You'll find a link to dOWfl~ad
> An estimation of a 20:1 dosage of chemical dispersant is used for successful chemical dispersion. This is multiplied by an effect v,ne
>
,
>
<.
--~-<. ( (<----<.
Sky Bristol
~ :~ (~~:<::~,::~~,(I::<::~::'~,t<::Brien,
lof2
Sean CDR wrote:
I:
I
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009621
>
>
Sky:
When you have S mins; quick question on the tool ...
Sean O'Brien, CDR
National Incident Conunand

(el
iI
I .
I I!
-----Original Message----From: sbristol@usqs.gov [mail to: sbristol@llsgs.aov]
~~
~~
Cc: Mcinroy, limy LT; Mark Miller - NOAA

Subjec1:: Oil Budget Tool - updated
Ij
i! !
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and a cumulative total shown in the executive summary! for
I;

I\s we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get from Jaqui Michel and that particular group. We! 11
~eJy
, ,
I
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the applicatlon. In particular, let
Thank you.
<. {( l< ........... <. \ { ........... <. (( [<
Sky Bristol
.shr istol@usos.gov
<. (( --'-<.1 <-_._<. ( 1<<<
u~
know if the new Inland Recovery report leo
I
I
Jordan St.out
Scient':' fic Support Coordinator

Coast Guard Isiand f Bldg 50-7
Alameda, CA 94501-5000
24-nour NOAA'spill hotline:
20f2
1206l526-4911
9/27/20102:10 PM
009622
. My USGS help please
Subject: My USGS help please

From: Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:17:17 -0400
CC: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
Sky,
My colleague here at the NrC, Mark miller (Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov), has a myusgs account but
is having difficulty gaining access to the oil budget application. Anything you all can do to
assist?
Stephen E. Hammond
Chief Emergency Operations Office,
National Geospatial Program
Reston, VA
1 of 1
9/27/2010 2: 10 PM
009623
Re: My USGS help please
Subject: Re: My USGS help please

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:22:35 -0600
To: Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
CC: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
I think there was an oversight some time back, and we did not create a new account for the
production system. Mark had an account on our beta systems. He'll get a new account and
password from myusgs@usgs.gov in a few minutes.
Sorry about that.
<.----<.----<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
(<
On Jul 15,2010, at 2:17 PM, Stephen E Hammond wrote:
I Sky,
I
1 My colleague here at the I\lIC, Mark miller (IVlark.W.Mifler@noaa.gov), has a myusgs

account but is having difficulty gaining access to the oil budget application. Anything you
1 all can do to assist?
!
I
I1 Stephen
E. Hammond
I Chief Emergency Operations Office,

'I National Geospatial Program
I
I
Reston, VA
(fax)
lof!
9/27/20102:10 PM
New myUSGS Account
009624
Subject: New myUSGS Account

From: "myusgs@usgs.gov" <myusgs@usgs.gov>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:22:38 -0600 (MDT)
To: "mark.w.miller@noaa.gov" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Mark,
Here's your new account for access to the Oil Budget tool - https:l!my.usgs.gov
loilBudget/.
Here's your new myUSGS account:
username:
password:
To enter myUSGS go to: http://my.usgs.gov/
Passwords expire after 90 days.
You may change your password, by going to http://my.usgs.gov!home!myAccount
10fl
9/27/20102:10 PM
009625
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re; Oil Budget Tool- updated]

From: "Mark.W.Mille~' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: lhu, 15 Jul2010 16:36:15 -0400
To: Jordan Stout <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>
I am not sure if it is on RL but it is in the documentation on the web tool. If you can't wait for your account feel free to use mine -
https:llmy.usgs.govloiIBudget
Mark
Jordan Sloul wrote:
, Coot It seemed that Sky Bristors e-mail mentiOned II doctJ'Tlent thai Bill LetT had worked on. Is that on RL?
Jordan
Jordan Stout
SCientific Support Coordinator
NOAA Emergency Response DMsion
Coast Guard Island, Bldg 50-7
rotline: (206)526-4911
from: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gQv>

To: ,lordan.Stout@noaa.gov <,londan.Stout@noaa oov>
Sent: Thu lui 15 15:59:08 2010
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: 011 BudgetTool - updated]
II is a wab based tool with a login and pw. I am requesting accounts for all the SSCs.
Is the Mass Balance document available? If not me, can RDML Kom see it? I didn't see it attached.
Jordan.
- - Original Message
Subject:Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated
Date:lhu. 15 Jul 201010:48:28 -0700
From:Bili Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
To:O'Brlen. Sean CDR <Sean.KO'Brien@uscg.mil>
References:<E91AB69D-OA58-459B-943E-5A167EB173A8@usgs.gov> <430EF5E6C11904498224A1B849D8C81404A6AEB3@emoexmb-m-103.main.ads.uscg.mil> <94D92F9D-819E-4E83-A7C7.52595822F28D@usgs.gov>
Sean,
plume where members of the fRTG Plume team estimated the energy
observations (reduction in surface slick above the source} and some

very limited water sampling. Therefore we used the rTOPF 20:1 ratio for
dispersable with the addi tion of chemical dispersants so we used a
multiplyin9 by an effectiveness factor less than 1.
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
.NOAA/O!'.!'.
On 7tlSti0 9:49 AM, Sky Bristol wrote:
lof2
9/27/2010 2:10 PM
009626
> The best answer to this comes from the Mass Balance document Bill Lehr and the plume team put toqether. You'll find a link
>
>
>
An estimation of a 20:1 dosage of chemical dispersant is used for successful chemical dispersion. This is lnultiplied by an
> <""I <----<. ( ( ----<. 1(1<<<

Sky Sristol
>
> <. { ( ----<. 111<----<. 1 ( 1<
>
> On Jul IS, 2010, at 10:15 AMI O'Brien, Sean CDR wrote:
>
Sky:
What is your algorithm for sub-sea and surface dispersan~s? - just want to make sure I have it correct.
Sean O'Brien, COR
-----Original Messaqe-----
from: ~brist.0l~~9..'t~Jl~~ f!!!~.:Ll!o":.~.~t~~l.~"~".')
To: O'Brien! Sean CDR; Ha.mmon; Steve; Lauer, Daniel LCDR

Ce: McElroy, MY LT; Mark Miller - NOAA
Subject: Oil Sudget Tool
II
updated
~~
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and a cumulative total shown in the executive
As we discussed, we'll continue trackinq down any additional data we can get from .1aqui Michel and that particular group. Wef~l
.,
i ife:
:
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the application. In particular, let us know if the new Inland Recovery; r~oFt
~~ Thank you.
fc
I f
s~ry!
<. ( ( (<----<. { ( ----<. I {
Sky Sristol
If II
I !
I
I
I '
<----<. 111<----<. { I (<<<
>
!, iI
I I
I I
Jordan S tou t
Scient:ific Suppo!'t Coordinator
NOAA Emergency
Respo~se
Division
24-hour NOAA spill hotline: 1206) 526-4911
I,
II
I!
I
i
i
2of2
9127/20102: 10 PM
009627
Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistanc ...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program Military Nexus]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:41:18 -0400
CC: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton
<Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>, "'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'" <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>,
"'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.govlll <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Glen Watabayashi <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>
the latest is that they will host a person for 1 week beginning on the 26th.
NORTH COM is paying and asked for a military-type to be included.
Have been
working this with Brendan Bray and he is ok with the second person also.
the main
point was to do this by early August (due to space) and to limit to 1 week.
This
seems to work for everyone.
I, Jim,
i; We have discussed this issue several times over the last couple days. ERD wants
~ to be fully supportive of this type of request but of course on a "not to
i interfere" basis with our response activities. The fact is that our Seattle
; office is still fully involved seven days a week in the response. In addition we
j are very constrained for space due to the significant personnel increase over
! the last two months. The last issue is that with the recent change in the Loop
; Current (the separation of Eddy Franklin) the risk of impact to the Bahamas
! which was always low has decreased.
I
I! In
II
!
light of that we may want to go back to the Bahamas to see if they still want
1 to have this technical exchange. If they are still interested then ERD would
like to go back to the original plan for one oceanographer to come to Seattle
)
for two to four weeks to to learn NOAA modeling applications.
!
1
! If this presents significant issues let's discuss it. Thanks.
Mark
!
,
I
I
,I
James Turner wrote:

Brendan/Debbie,
I!
,i
!IYour call, please let me know what you decide. Thanks

!i . -----------------------------------------------------------------------i i
I
I
II
,
Subject:
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military Nexus
i J From:
Ii "Moppert, Brooke S" <MoppertBS@state.gov>
Ii
Date:
/: I
f I Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
To:
, James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>,
<ColonFA@state.gov>
iI
II
II
To:
James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>,
<ColonFA@state.gov>
CC:
of7
9/27/20102:10 PM
009628
Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov, Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov, Allison.Reed@noaa.gov,

Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov, Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Dubel, Jefferson K"
<DubelJK@state.gov>, "Reinert, Susan L CIV .USA NORAD USNORTHCOM HQs IC DOS"
1.1
.I.
!I
I!
11
I
11
II[ I Jim and NOAA Colleagues:
I!II
\ 1
\f
f;
.l
II
~ i
! NORTHCOM,
as you all know, has generously agreed to fund the technical

! assistance program for one Bahamian scientist at the end of this month at your
I Seattle Headquarters.
However, in order to fund this opportunity, NORTHCOM
! has requested that there be a "military Nexus.
II
This "nexus" would consist of a Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF)

accompanying the Bahamian scientist for the four-week program.
! The RBDF officer would also have some scientific background and would apply
I the information learned to disaster management. NORTHCOM would cover expenses
for this individual as well.
11
Ji
!,
I
II
I
I representative
11
II1
i1
II
II
! Before
I proceed with making arrangements, I would like to request your

assistance/cooperation in accommodating the RBDF officer, and to allow both
I the Bahamian scientist/RBDF officer to take two days in the middle of their
I four-week program (dates of your choosing) to travel to NORTHCOM Headquarters
in Colorado (expenses also paid by NORTHCOM) .
I
i
<"
II
II
i
II
if
Ij
Ii
i:
I arrangements.
I!
I!
, ,
ii
!!
!i
11
l Please
advise ASAP, as your decision is needed to proceed with logistical
!!
i1
I Thanks,
I! Brooke
\ 1
!I
iI
i!
I11t
II
I!
I1
,t
,1
*From:* James Turner [mailto:James.Turner@noaa.gov]

*Sent:* Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:55 AM
*To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Sykes, Sherry Z; Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES); Colon,
Frances A (WHA)
*Cc:* 'Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov'; 'debbie.payton@noaa.gov';
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'; 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'
*Subject:* Fw: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE)
I
2of7
i.
! ,
Ii,
I,
,
I
I
j!
i!
Responses to Brooke's visit logistics questions. Please note, if current OMB

restrictions on discussing the loop current do not change prior to a visit, we
I will develop appropriate guidance.
!!
1
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009629
rIi1------------------------------------------------------------------------
'
Iit *From*: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>

Ii *To*: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
I I *Cc*: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>;
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'
<Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>;'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov' <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>
Ii *Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
*Subject*: Re: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]
III
II;
II" Dr Turner,
I
IIII for
Please find below the OR&R response to Embassy Nassau's questions on
tics I I
the
to Seattle.
I've also included an answer to their 2nd round of 1\
!I
I! questions re: contents of a 4 week training course. As you will see below, we
!I are not thinking of this visit as a formal training, but it will be a great
II learning opportunity for the right candidate.
! ! 1) NOAA to confirm that it is a four week training and location of NOAA
i! Office:
i, '
II
111~,'
,
I,
II
1 !
l!we do not have a specific 4 week training course to offer. The 4 week time
frame came in response to one of the original questions asked by Embassy
Ii Nassau following our initial briefing to them in
June. If an
experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of ocean observation
I I modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person to gain a basic
I i understanding of our oil fate and trajectory modeling approach.
:1
!\
!I
J.
I!
'
II During
the 4 week stay, the visiting scientist will work in the Seattle office Ii,
!f of the Office or Response and Restoration, Emergency Response Division. The
II visitor will have the opportunity to observe the development of daily fate and!
I" j trajectory models for the Deepwater Horizon oil spillispeak with NOAA
!I
II scientists working on the spill; learn about the General NOAA Operational
II,.
!Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical
I! reactivity database; and develop a broader understanding of how to apply these 11
;1 forecasting and modeling tools to oil and chemical
in the Bahamas. The i j
i l visitor will also have an opportunity to discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport 11 i,:
!lmodels related to the Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on the
1] status of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico.
I!
112)
~
!!
II
fl
Names of at least three hotels so that we can research rates.
Silver Cloud Hotel - University.
http://www.silvercloud.com/university.htm
Watertown Hotel.
http://www.watertownseattle.com/
Travel Lodge - Seattle University.
II' hotels
3) General
travelodgeseattleuniversity.com
cost of taxi to and from NOAA Office to any of the recommended
I
'
10-20 USD.
Recommend renting a car if you are staying more than a few days.
30f7
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009630
i!
I!1 50-60
~
II.l James
f
USD
Turner wrote:
! Fyi, see additional information requested by Bahamas and the explanation about
why they need it.
Thanks
II
!I
I, j
Subject:
,1
Ii
!IFrom,
l!
, !
II
! I,
"Moppert, Brooke S"
<mailto:MoppertBS@state.gov>!'
II
II
; 1
j
;!Date:
!I
! Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
I
I'- I
I;
!j Ij To:
, -
I,
II "Sykes,
~
Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov> <mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner

<James.Turner@noaa.gov> <mailto:James.Turner@noaa.gov>
II
II
I
II
i!
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov> <mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner

I <James.Turner@noa~.gov> <mailto:James.Turner@noaa.gov>
!,} !, CC:
l t
II
I
G" <Mack-WilSOnJG@state.gov><mailto:Mack-'j
"Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubelJK@state.gov>
<mailto,DubelJK@state,qov>
The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail chain below)
they would like to have a schedule of training, a description of the training
and what skills the trainee would obtain at the end of the training.
IIII
III
I'
IIill Jim:
I
II
II
l, I To:
I! "Mack-Wilson, Joslyn
II WilsonJG@state. gov>,
II
II
II
Iii
\
I'
This may seem like a lot to ask of NOAA, but the Bahamian government must have
The Prime
Minister has currently banned all government travel as a cost-saving maneuver
(there are hard economic times here as well).
Therefore, anything you can
! . this information in order to justify the expense to Parliament.
il
:1
Thanks,
Brooke
4of7
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009631
t Brooke
'II
S. Moppert
I Economic
Officer
of the United States of America
I Nassau,
"
I:
The Bahamas
! ~
l I
I I
!I
I!
, I
II
==-=.::::.:::..::...::=-=~
<mailto:moppertbs@state.gov>
I
I

,
I,
1~
!!
*From:* Carol Albury [mailto

@
.
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:20 AM
i *To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Carolann albury; C Albury
i *Subject:* RE: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
I,
I
II

is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would be a
!
I schedule of training which is to take place over the duration of say 4 weeks. I
A brief on what the technical person(s) who is receiving the training would be
'I capable of performing as a result of the training.
.
I!
i1
II
! There
i
Ii
ii
1Regards
== ~........
1 carol ann albury
I Director
I Bahamas
National Geographic Information Systems (BNGIS) Centre
II
II
Ii
I
I
I
I!
From:
.
To: moppertbs@state.gov <mailto:moppertbs@state.gov>;
carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs <mailto:carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs>;
1/

Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,
50f7
9/27/20102:10 PM
009632
II
iI
Ii byIn Captain
reference to our conversation concerning
Russell to submit communications
the above captioned, I am advised

regarding costing for our
I technical officer to take advantage of the technical assistance being offered
I by The US through the NOAA office. I suppose the office is located at 7600
I Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif Project Office/National Weather
! Service) .
!
!
; !
!! transportation,
Understanding that the Government may be
to fund per diem, ground
round
airfare and communications, grateful if you would
i
the following information which would help determining cost

ications:
I!
q1
ij
II
13
11
t1
1i
I!
11
1
1) NOAA to confirm that it is a four week
Office:
II:
I
I!
12)
and location of NOAA
I
1
II'
II
! 4)
I
I
11
I!
3) General cost of taxi to and from NOAA Office to any of the recommended
I hotels
of taxi to and from Airport
Ii!
I!
Ii
H
IiII
II
Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while my budget
has been slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS Centre and the MET
'
Department as very important and essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP
oil Spill particularly in our region.
II
I Regards
I
!
I,
I'
II
Ii
!
=================
60f7
9/27/20102:10 PM
009633
! carol ann
!
albury
Director,
!!
I Hotmail:
Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
! <https://signuo.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------i
! Hotmail:
Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.

.
i <https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
7of7
If
II
1
I
I
9/27/20102:10 PM
Oil Budget Tool
009634

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:44:57 -0400
To: Tony Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>, Robert Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Tony,
I am requesting accounts for access to the web based oil budget tool that NOAA
assisted USGS in creating. Do you have folks that want/need access?
If you would like to look at the tool to decide use my account:
https://my.usgs.gov/oilBudget
Mark
1 of 1
9/27/20102:10 PM
009635
Fwd: p-3 extended hrs submission
Subject: Fwd: p-3 extended hrs submission

From: Chris.Beaverson@noaa.gov
Date: lhu, 15 Jul 2010 16:46:44 -0400
To: Mark..W.Miller@noaa.gov
Thanks for printing.
ChriS
Subject: p-3 extended hrs submission

Date: lhu, 15 Jul 2010 16:24:41 -0400
To: Chris Beaverson <Chris.Beaverson@noaa.gov>, Don Aiken <Don.Aiken@noaa.gov>, Brad Kearse <William.Kearse@noaa.gov>, Molly Baringer
<Molly.Baringer@noaa.gov>
1'.11-
the attached is the version submitted to the new proposal database with the budget updated for monthly allotments.
Mike Allen
OAR-LeI Sea Grant Fellow

i. p-3 e:tended hIS $UbmiSSion.emlfcc~~t;~t~TY~;;d:
ontent-Enco 109:
C
P3-Loop Current Sampling-Extension-1.docx
m7'b~tssage/rfc822
I
t t T
on en - ype.
application/vnd.openxmlformatsofficedocument.wordprocessingml.document
1 of I
9/27/20102: to PM
009636
SCOPE OF WORK
FOR ACTIVITIES RELATED TO OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON MC 252
FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2010
Prepared By: Molly Baringer/Chris Beaverson, OAR,

mollY. baringer@noaa.gov, chris. beaverson@noaa.gov
Date:
28 June 2010
Science Box Theme:
Oceanography
Title:
Upper Ocean sampling of currents and salinity in the
Loop Current to monitor the Deepwater Horizon Oil
Spill: Extended Flight Hours
Keywords:
WP-3D, Loop Current, XBT
Location:
Gulf of Mexico, Tampa FL and Miami FL
Principal Investigator:
Frank Marks/AOML
Contact Information:
Frank.marksfa)noaa.gov,
4301 Rickenbacker Cswy, Miami, FL 33149
Partner Institution(s):
RSMAS/CIMAS,OMAO
Co-Principal Investigator(s):
Nick Shay/CIMAS, Molly Baringer AOML
Duration:
6/25/2010 - 9/30/2010
Planned Start Date:
6/25/2010
Planned End Date:
9/30/2010
Total Estimated Cost:
$2,784,523 for entire project; $2,356,834 for first 30 days
PRFA Statement:
This plan specifies the work to be completed by NOAA under a cost-reimbursable agreement with
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). A general description of the work to be performed and financial
plans for the project are included in this document. This project would be conducted in FY 2010 and
is subject to the availability of Federal funds from year to year.
Project Description:
This project supports the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill by providing subsurface Temperature,
Salinity, and Velocity profiles in the Gulf region to initialize and validate ocean circulation
models used to predict the surface and subsurface oil movement. This proposal covers
approximately 14 flights beginning June 25, occurring weekly (see budget justification).
009637
Flight hours were requested in support of NOAA's response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil
Spill, and represent a collaboration with Prof..Nick Shay of the University of MiamilRSMAS
and the NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory and DOIIMMS. The
goal of the project is to use the NOAA WP-3D aircraft to deploy airborne expendable
bathythermographs, current and conductivity with depth probes (AXBT, AXCP and
AXCTD, respectively) to provide deep-water (AXBTs to 350 m, AXCPs to 1500m, and
AXCTDs to 1000 m) profiles of temperature, currents and salinity in the vicinity of the oil
spill and the Loop Current.
The Loop Current is a horseshoe-shaped feature and flows clockwise, transferring wann
subtropical waters from the Caribbean Sea through the Yucatan Straits into the Gulf of
Mexico and then back out of the Florida Straits as the Florida Current that forms the core of
the Gulf Stream along the eastern seaboard.
The AXCPs and AXCTDs are similar to those used in most oceanographic studies from ship,
except that they are specially packaged for airborne deployment from the NOAA WP-3D
aircraft. They can be launched via external sonobuoy tubes or from an internal chute.
The NOAA WP-3D aircraft has conducted numerous such missions over the last 15 years in
support of hurricane research objectives and can carry -60 probes per mission and sample a
large portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico is a single 10-h mission (see sample in Fig. 1).
This is apartnering between MMS, University of Miami, and NOAAlAOML Hurricane
Research Division to provide Loop Current monitoring to assess hurricane impacts on the
Loop Current. Hence this proposal enables NOAA to take advantage of a collaboration
already in place to focus these observing assets to monitor and assess the Loop Current's role
in dispersing the oil spill and the potential major ecosystem impacts to the Everglades,
Florida Bay, Dry Tortugas, and the Florida Keys.
Assets:
NOAA WP-3D aircraft
Objectives:
Deploy AXBT, AXCP, AXCTD and other devices into the Northern Gulf of Mexico and
Loop Current to provide data for modeling Oceanic Heat Content (OHC) and other features
Map sea surface along flight path using multichannel Stepped Frequency Microwave
Radiometer (SFMR)
Methods and Operations:
120 Flight hours are requested (approximately 14 flights) to:
1. Deploy combinations ofAXCPs, AXCTDs and AXBTs from NOAA Research aircraft and
provide a short summary report for each flight to the ICC and OAR for comment;
2. Objectively analyze oceanic structure from all grid (e.g., Mariano and Brown 1992) approach
to characterize the LC and its surrounding eddy/ring field;
3. Deliver the 20 and 26C isotherm depths and OHC for comparisons to a Global OHC product
based on radar altimetry at NOAA NESDIS cast within the context of a two-layer reduced
gravity model;
4. Map brightness temperatures from multi-channel SFMRto characterize the sea surface along
the flight tracks;
5. Deploy Global Position Sondes (GPS) data over the grid to reduce flight-level winds to the
surface (nominally 10-m) to estimate surface stress from the bulk aerodynamic formulae;
2
009638
6. Provide data to a central web server at AOML as well as one located at RSMAS for easy
access by modelers; and,
7. Assist the scientists involved in numerical modeling by comparing data to simulations of the
WCE shedding process.
Geostrophlo Velocity witl: Dynamic SS:i: 06,'16/2010
.S~
(=
..
""
,..
'10
""
".
"'"
,<>0
'"
eo
"
'"
a2.IJ'W
Figure 1: Flight tracks on 18 June flight from NOAA WP-3D aircraft.
Acquisitions / Grants / Contracts:

Cooperative Agreement with ClMAS
Reports and Meetings (Applicable for PRFA Proposals):
NOAA personnel will meet as needed with USCG personnel and will prepare reports, invoices, and
other financial documents as required. Major revisions to the scope of the SOW would require a
formal amendment of the SOW and associated cost estimates.
For Budget/Office Use Only:

PRFA
Type of Proposal:
Proposal Identifier:
NRDA
Science Box / ARRA__
Proposal Clearance Status:

Science Box Approval Date:
NOAA Budget Review Date:
OR&R Review Date:
FOSC Approval Date:
009639
COST ESTIMATE
FOR ACTIVITIES RELATED TO OIL SPILL' RESPONSE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO

RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON MC 252
FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2010
Prepared by: (Molly Baringer/Chris Beaverson, NOAA/OAR)
Justification: Expenses are broken down into monthly increments beginning on June 25,2010.
Expendables are included in month one, because they must be purchased well in advance of flights.
Additionally, CIMAS costs must be in an agreement to the institution during the first month. Five
flights will be conducted during month! (June 25 - July 24), 4 flights during month 2 (July 25August 24), and 5 flights during month 3 (August 2S - September 24).
Activity
Flight Hours
Project days
Project Flight days
Fuel
Incidentals
. Premium pay
Engineering
Comms
Ground Support
Auto flight following
AOML Processing
Salaries
Month 1 5 flights)
NOAA's Cost Estimates
94,286
8,041
13,500
96,429
8,929
1,071
15,000
179
171
108,462
Expendables
(XBT,XCTD,XCP)
1,660,851
NOAA SUBTOTAL Month 1
2,006,919
Activity
Salary and Benefits
Labor
Contractors
Overtime
Travel
Indirect costs
Other Services
Supplies
CIMAS SUBTOTAL
Month 1
Total Month 1
Partner's Cost Estimates

(CIMAS)
184,102
33,000
113,233
8,230
11,350
349,915
$2,356,834
4
009640
Activity
Flight Hours
Project days
Project Flight days
Fuel
Incidentals
Premium pay
Engineering
Comms
Ground Support
Month 2 (4 flights)
75,428
6,433
10,800
77,142
7,142
858
12,000
142
138
NOAA TOTAL Month 2
Activity
Flight Hours
Project days
Project Flight days
Fuel
Incidentals
Premium pay
Engineering
Comms
Ground Support
190,083
Month 3 (5 flights)
94,286
8,041
13,500
96,429
NOAA TOTAL Month 3
Total Budget
8,929
1,071
15,000
179
171
237,606
2,784,523
009641

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:09:14 -0400
CC: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Here it is.
Mark
My USGS wrote:
Mark
First Name
Last Name
e-mail address
Thank you
Sibert (Si) Peterson

Regional Geospatiallnformation Office
shpeterson@usgs.gov

To:
IVBrk Miler <markw.miller@noaa.gov>
cc:
"Administrator (USGSJIRA)" <myusgs@usgs.gov>
Subject:
07/141201006:02 PM
NO problem. You can reply all to this email (including the CC to myusgs@usgs.govl with full names and
email addresses. Each person will get a separate email with their account information.
We discussed this before you got on the call, but the system will be down from 0700-1900 on Sunday, July
25 for a planned move to a new data center we have had in the works. We offered to spin up a contingency
plan for alternate access during that time, but CDR O'Brien felt that the downtime would not be a problem.
Let us know if you feel different.
<. ----<. '( (<----<. ( , <:<

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
( (
On Ju1 14, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Sky,
>
lof2
9/27/20102:10 PM
009642
> I would like to get read access accounts for our field SSCs. What is the best format for me to present
the list of names and .emails (there are about 20 of them).

>
> Mark
>
New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and a cumulative total shown
in the executive summary for reporting. I added a note about this variable that comes up in the report. If
you all ever want to change any of the notes, please let us know and we'll walk you through how to do that
on your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a group that allows you to edit the various
annotations available through the application and in the reports.
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get from Jaqui Michel and that
particular group. We'll rely on anything additional in the way of inland recovery data availability to
come to us from LT McElroy or other USCG personnel.
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the application. In particular, let us know if the
new Inland Recovery report component looks okay.
Thank you.
<. ----<. ----<.

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<.
--<. ( (
sse list for Oil Budget Tool.xlsx
Content-Type.
application/vnd.openxmlformatsofficedocu ment.sp read sheetml. sheet
20f2
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009643
Oil Budget Tool

First Name
Brad
Dean
Mary
Doug
Charlie
Jim
Liz
Steve
Ed
Jason
Josh
Jordan
John
John
Ruth
William
Frank
Last Name
Benggio
Dale
Gill
Helton
Henry
Jeansonne
Jones
Lehmann
Levine
Rolfe
Slater
Stout
Tarpley
Whitney
Yender
Whitmore
Csulak
Email
Acct Group
brad.benggio@noaa.gov Reader
dean.dale@noaa.gov
mary.gill@noaa.gov
doug.helton@noaa.gov
charlie.henry@noaa.gov
jim.jeansonne@noaa.gov
elizabeth.jones@noaa.gov
steve.lehmann@noaa.gov
ed.levine@noaa.gov
jason.rolfe@noaa.gov
joshua.slater@noaa.gov
jordan.stout@noaa.gov
john.tarpley@noaa.gov
john.whitney@noaa.gov
ruth.yender@noaa.gov
william.whitmore@noaa.gov
frank.csulak@noaa.gov
009644
Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Teclmical Assistanc ...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance ProgramMilitary Nexus]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:15:14 -0400
Mark,
This is
my fault. I received a note from Bushy stating that Seattle
could handle 2 people for one week, but any longer would be a challenge because
Scott Cross was rotating in. The 2nd person is some kind of military contact and
I am not sure there expertise or purpose for visiting. Northcom is demanding that
person come along in order for Northcom to agree to cover costs. Very strange.
I support your decision to push back, but we may want to consider alternatives.
--Brendan
l Jim,
i,',
Ii My reply
i would
j Mark
was based on discussions this morning with Bill Conner and Seattle so
\
the group's opinion. We feel that we could accommodate the
scientist but the extra person would be a real challenge - we do not have anyone I
to keep that person engaged.
!I James
II the
I',I
II
!I
II
il
Turner wrote:
latest is that they will host a person for 1 week beginning on the 26th.
JI NORTHCOM is paying and asked for a military-type to be included. Have been
working this with Brendan Bray and he is ok with the second person also. the
!imain point was to do this by early August (due to space) and to limit to 1
week. T~is seems t~ work for everyone.
;, Mark.W.M1Iler wrote.
~ ~
Jim(
IIIII
We have discussed this issue several times over the last couple days. ERD
wants to be fully supportive of this type of request but of course on a "not
to interfere" basis with our response activities. The fact is that our
Seattle office is still fully involved seven days a week in the response. In
addition we are very constrained for space due to the significant personnel
increase over the last two months. The last issue is that with the recent
change in the Loop Current (the separation of Eddy Franklin) the risk of
impact to the Bahamas which was always low has decreased.
i
~
I-
II
] i
\i
! I :
!I
! 1
In light of that we may want to go back to the Bahamas to see if they still
want to have this technical exchange. If they are still interested then ERD
would like to go back to the original plan for one oceanographer to come to
Seattle for two to four weeks to to learn NOAA modeling applications.
presents significant issues let's discuss it. Thanks.
James Turner wrote:

Brendan/Debbie,
. Your call, please let me know what you decide.
10f7
Thanks
9/27/2010 2:10 PM
009645
!
I
Subject:
From:
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z"
AB (OES)" <KimEAB@state.gov>, "Colon,
I
1
I
I
, 1
I
I
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z"

AB (OES)"
I,
!
iJ
~!I
i;
II, f
;!
"Colon,
Frances A (WHA) " <ColonFA@state.gov>

CC:
Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov, Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov,"Dubel,JeffersonK"
<DubeIJK@state.gov>, "Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD USNORTHCOM HQs IC
DOS" <Susan.Reinert@northcom.mil>, Janice.Smith@tcsc.southcom.rnil
II
I I
Jim and NOAA
!I
I'
Ij
,II
~
NORTHCOM, as you all know, has generously agreed to fund the technical
assistance program for one Bahamian scientist at the end of this month at
your Seattle Headquarters.
However, in order to fund this opportunity,
NORTHCOM has requested that there be a "military Nexus."
III
j
II
i
This "nexus" would consist of a Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF:

!. representative accompanying the Bahamian scientist for the four-week
I'
program. The RBDF officer would also have some scientific background and
would apply the information learned to disaster management. NORTHCOM
, would cover expenses for this individual as well.
I
I
I
!
Before I proceed with making arrangements, I would like to request your

assistance
ion in accommodating the RBDF officer, and to allow
both the Bahamian scientist/RBDF officer to take two days in the middle of
their four-week program (dates of your choosing) to travel to NORTHCOM
Headquarters in Colorado (expenses also paid by NORTHCOM) .
Please advise ASAP, as your decision is needed to proceed with logistical
arrangements.
}
, Thanks,
Brooke
20f7
9/27/20102:10 PM
009646

*To:* Moppert, Brooke Si Sykes, Sherry Zi Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES)i Colon,
Frances A (WHA)
*Cc:* 'Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov'i 'debbie.payton@noaa.gov';
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'i 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.qov'i
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'
*Subject:* Fw: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]
Responses to Brooke's visit logistics questions. Please note, if current

OMB restrictions on discussing the loop current do not change prior to a
visit, we will develop appropriate guidance.
*From*: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>

*To*: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
*Cc*: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>; 'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'
<Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>i 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'
<Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>
*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
Dr Turner,
, logistics for the
to Seattle.
I've also ~ncluded an answer to their
2nd round of questions re: contents of a 4 week training course. As you
will see below, we are not thinking of this visit as a formal training,
but it will be a great learning opportunity for the right candidate.
1) NOAA to confirm that it is a four week training and location of NOAA
Office:
We do not have a specific 4 week training course to offer. The 4 week
, time frame came in response to one of the original questions asked by
Embassy Nassau following our initial briefing to them in early June. If
an experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of ocean
observation ! modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person to gain a
basic understanding of our oil fate and trajectory modeling approach.
During the 4 week stay, the visiting scientist will work in the Seattle
office of the Office or Response and Restoration, Emergency Response
Division. The visitor will have the opportunity to observe the
development of daily fate and trajectory models for the Deepwater Horizon
oil spillispeak with NOAA scientists working on the spill; learn about the
General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn about the
NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity database; and develop a broader
understanding of how to apply these forecasting and modeling tools to oil
and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an
opportunity to discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport models related to the
Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on the status of the loop
current in the Gulf of Mexico.
30f7
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009647

/university.htm
Watertown Hotel.
http://www.silvercloud.com
; Travel Lodge - Seattle University. travelodgeseattleuniversity.com

hotels
10-20 USD. Recommend renting a car if you are staying more than a few
days.
50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:
Fyi, see additional information requested by Bahamas and the explanation

about why
need it. Thanks
I
!
Subject:
I
!
From:
"Moppert, Brooke S" <MoppertBS@state.gov> <mailto:MoppertBS@state.gov>
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov> <mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>, James
Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov> <mailto:James.Turner@noaa.gov>
To:
CC:
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJG@state.aov> <mailto:MackWilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubelJK@state.gov>
<mailto:DubelJK@state.aov>
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail chain below) they would like to have a schedule of training, a description of the
training and what skills the trainee would obtain at the end of the
40f7
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009648
training.
This may seem like a lot to ask of NOAA, but the Bahamian government must
1 have this information in order to justify the expense to Parliament. The
l Prime Minister has currently banned all government travel as a cost-saving
. maneuver (there are hard economic times here as well). Therefore,
anything you can provide with more detail would go a long way in
facilitating this exchange.
11
J
,IIII
. I
I
Thanks,
Brooke
II
Brooke S. Moppert
d
II
Economic Officer
11
! .

Nassau, The Bahamas
!!
I!
J!
!! !
t
I!
moppertbs@state.gov <mailto:moppertbs@state.gov>
II
lJ

.
*To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Carolann albury; C Albury
*Subject:* RE: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would be a
schedule of training which is to take place over the duration of say 4
weeks. A brief on what the technical person(s) who is receiving the
training would be capable of performing as a result of the training.
Regards
=================
carolann albury
Director,
50f7
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009649
Bahamas National Geographic Information Systems
(BNGIS) Centre
II
i
!
~
From:
@
.
To: moppertbs@state.qov <mailto:moppertbs@state.gov>;
.
.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,
I
I
I'
In reference to our conversation concerning the above captioned, I am

advised by Captain Russell to submit communications regarding costing for
our technical officer to take advantage of the technical assistance being
offered by The US through the NOAA office.
I suppose the office is
located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif Project
Office/National Weather Service).
II
i
!
f
I~
Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per diem, ground
tran-sportation, round trip airfare and communications, grateful if you
would provide the following information which would help determining cost
implications:
I:
Office:
i;
hotels
I'
~ ~.
I: '
i ;
~
~
- Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while my
budget has been slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS Centre
and the MET Department as very important and essentail for monitoring the
6of7
9/27/20102:10 PM
009650
impact of the BP oil Spill particularly in our region.
Regards
carol ann albury

Director,
1
<https:!!signup.live.com!sionup.aspx?id=60969>
I
Ij
I;
Hotrnail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.

<https:!!signup.live.com!signup.aspx?id=60969>
Ii
I!d

7of7
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009651
Subject: Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program-
Military Nexus]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:17:31 -0400
'
CC: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton
<Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>, "'Allison.Reed@noaa.govlll <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>,
mpamela.Toschik@noaa.gov <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner
<William. Con ner@noaa.gov>, Glen Watabayashi <Glen. Watabayash i@noaa.gov>
lll
Let me ask Brendan to respond.

than I am.
l Jim,
He is much more familiar with the arrangements
I My
reply was based on discussions this morning with Bill Conner and Seattle so
represent the group's opinion. We feel that we could accommodate the
! scientist but the extra person would be a real challenge - we do not have anyone
! to keep that person engaged.
i would
! Mark
~
i James Turner wrote:
I I the
latest is that they will host a person for 1 week beginning on the 26th.
is paying and asked for a military-type to be included. Have been
working this with Brendan Bray and he is ok with the second person also. the
'Imain point was to do this by early August (due to space) and to limit to 1
r week. This seems to work for everyone.
! Mark.W.Miller wrote:
i Jim,
! I NORTH COM
II
I
~
wants to be fully supportive of this type of request but of course on a "not
to interfere" basis with our response ?ctivities. The fact is that our
Seattle office is still fully involved seven days a week in the response. In
addition we are very constrained for space due to the significant personnel
increase over the last two months. The last issue is that with the recent
change in the Loop Current (the separation of Eddy Franklin) the risk of
In light of that we may want to go back to the Bahamas to see if they still
want to have this technical exchange. If they are still interested then ERD
would like to go back to the original plan for one oceanographer to come to
Seattle for two to four weeks to to learn NOAA modeling applications.
I,
Ii
I
I
I
I
I1
I
II
iI
Ii
!!
II
If this presents,significant issues let's discuss it. Thanks.
Mark
James Turner wrote:
Brendan/Debbie,
Thanks
II
lof7
Subject:
9/27/2010 2:10 PM
009652

*To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Sykes, Sherry Z; Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES): Colon,
Frances A (WHA)
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'; 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov';
Responses to Brooke's visit logistics questions. Please note, if current

OMB restrictions on discussing the loop current do not
to a
II
II
l!
, II
,
i!
II
II
II
I'
; I
, II
IId'
11
II
,! {,

*Cc*: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>; '~====~~~~~~~~
<Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>: 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'
*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
ji
Ij
IiIi
Dr Turner,
11
Please find below the OR&R response to Embassy Nassau's
on
II logistics for the trip to Seattle.
I've also included an answer to their
Ii1 2nd round of questions re: contents of a 4 week training course. As you
1
. will see below! we are not thinking of this visit as a formal training,
!! but it will be a great learning opportunity for the right candidate.
I 1) NOAA to confirm that it is a four week training and location of NOAA
. Office:
; I!
1
'I
Ij
1~
;.
I..II'
~!
!I
<

time frame came in response to one of the original questions asked by
Embassy Nassau following our initial briefing to them in early June. I f
observation I modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person to
a
basic understanding of our oil fate and trajectory modeling approach.
During the 4 week stay! the visiting scientist will work in the Seattle
office of the Office or Response and Restoration! Emergency Response
development of daily fate and trajectory models for the Deepwater Horizon
oil
ispeak with NOAA scientists working on the spill; learn about the
\! ,General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn about the
. NOAA C~~EO tool and chemical reactivity database; and develop a broader
! '
of how to apply these forecasting and modeling tools to oil
1 i
I'
and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an
opportunity to discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport models related to the
Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on the status of the loop
current in the Gulf of Mexico.
It
I
tI
30f7

luniversity.htm
9/27/20102: 10 PM
009653
Watertown Hotel.

hotels
, days.
50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:
about why they need it. Thanks
I
I
rI
!
?ubject:
~'.
i;
;--
; j
!I
!I
II!
From:
II
Ij
Date:
III
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
II
To:
! .
!I
II, ,
i 1
11
I'
d
I

Ill. '
I" .
-,,:
!!
!I
I
To:
! I

!! Ii
CC:
11
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov> <mailto:MackWilsonJG@state.aov>, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubelJK@state.gov>

<mailto:DubelJK@state.gov>
!!, Turner
iI
,I
II 1i
i
j
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail chain below) they would like to have a schedule of training, a description of the
training.
40f7
9/27/20102:10 PM
009654
This may seem like a lot to ask of NOAA, but the Bahamian government must
have this informat.ion in order to justify the expense to Parliament. The
Prime Minister has currently banned all government travel as a cost-saving
maneuver (there are hard economic times here as well). Therefore,
anything you can provide with more detail would go a long way in
Thanks,
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
Nassau, The Bahamas
242-322-1181 X4218 (w)
, moppertbs@state.gov <mailto:mopoertbs@state.gov>
*From:* Carol Albury [mailto:calbury@

.
*To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Carol ann albury; C Albury

Regards
=================
carolann albury
Director,
50f7
9/27/20102:10 PM
009655

!
r
I .-----------------------------------------------------------------------I
,
From:
state.gov>;
.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
'
Good Day Brooke,

advised by Captain Russell to submit communications regarding costing for
our technical officer to take advantage of the technical assistance being
offered by The US through the NOAA office. I suppose the office is
located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif Project
Office/National Weather Service).
Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per diem, ground
transportation, round trip airfare and communications I grateful if you
would provide the following information which would
determining cost
implications:
I! ,
I,, ,
!'
!

Office:
!
!J
; 3) General cost of taxi to and from NOAA Office to any of the recommended
, hotels
Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while my
budget has been slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS Centre
and the MET Department as very important and essentail for monitoring the
impact of the BP oil Spill particularly in our region.
I
60f7
9/27/20102:10 PM
009656
I
I
I
. Regards
j
I
I
.IIII
carolann albury
Director l
IIII
I
II
Ii
I
,.
1
j
,I

<httos:!!signup.live.com!signup.aspx?id=60969>
Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.

II' . Hotmail:
<https:!!signup.live.com!signup.aspx?id=60969>
!
70f7
Get it now.
Ii
. I I
iI
i I
J.
1t
IIII!I
I l
I
I!
!
9/27/20102: 10 PM
Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Teclmical Assistanc

...
009657
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:39:28 -0400
CC: "Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton
<Debbie. Payton@noaa.gov>, "'All ison. Reed@noaa.gov'" <Allison. Reed@noaa.gov>,
"'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'" <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner
All: I am not familiar with the arrangements that NORTHCOM Is making in terms of
funding for both Ms. Sweeting and the Bahamas military representative. Apparently
(as of yesterday) the deal was for both or none. Based on a note from Bushy
yesterday, it sounded as if we would be able to accommodate both visitors for one
week. If this will cause undue distraction for ERD staff, then we need to push
back on Dept of State and NORTHCOM. We can also ask if combining these two
persons into one visit is really necessary.
What is still unclear is the role of the Bahamian military representative, are
they also seeking training? Will they be in Seattle for the full week.or just a
few days? Something was written about the military person making a visit to
NORTHCOM in colorado as well.
--Brendan
James Turner wrote:
me ask Brendan to respond.
1 than I am.
i Mark.W.Miller wrote:
I! Jim,
! Let
II
t!
discussi~n~
My reply was based on

this morning with Bill Conner and Seattle so
fl would represent the group's oplnlon. We feel that we could accommodate the
I I scientist but the extra person would be a real challenge - we do not have
I,' anyone to keep that person engaged.
Mark
III IJames
Turner wrote:
latest is that they will host a person for 1 week beginning on the
+ 26th.
NORTHCOM is paying and asked for a military-type to be included .
. I Have been working this with Brendan Bray and he is ok with the second person
1 also. the main point was to do this by early August (due to space) and to
!
limit to 1 week. This seems to work for everyone.
I the
wants to be fully supportive of this type of request but of course on a
"not to interfere" basis with our response activities. The fact is that
Seattle office is still fully involved seven days a week in the
response. In addition we are very constrained for space due to the
significant personnel increase over the last two months. The last issue is
that with the recent change in the Loop Current (the separation of Eddy
Franklin) the risk of impact to the Bahamas which was always low has
decreased.
In light of that we may want to go back to the Bahamas to see if they
still want to have this technical exchange. If they are still interested
then ERD would like to go back to the original plan for one oceanographer
lof7
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistanc

...
009658
i!
to come to Seattle for two to four weeks to to learn NOAA modeling
I!
j
If this presents
11
II .. applications.
L
J!
!i j.
~
Mark
James Turner wrote:

Brendan/Debbie,
;I
Your call,
/'
I
Ir
!
issues let's discuss it. Thanks.
II
Il
'11
II,
let me know what you decide.
Thanks
Subject:
URGENT PLEASE READ
Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military
Nexus
From:
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
To:
-James Turner
"Sykes, Sherry Z"
<SykesSZ@state.gov>,
AB (OES)" <KimEAB@state.gov>,
"Colon, Frances A (WHA) " <ColonFA@state.gov>
To:
James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes, Sherry Z"
<SykesSZ@state.gov>, "Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES) " <KimEAB@state.gov>,
"Colon, Frances A (WHA)" <ColonFA@state.gov>
CC:
Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov, Allison.Reed@noaa.gov,
Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Dubel, Jefferson K"
Susan L CIV USA NORAD USNORTHCOM HQs IC
Janice.Smith@tcsc.southcom.mil
i;
!1
IIII
Iid
! ,
- l!
i. II
.-II!i
;' . 1
.i I
I!
.Ii
II
1 ~
Jim and NOAA
I'
,l
" 1
ti
!I1
j
I
j
Ii
assistance program for one Bahamian scientist at the end of this month
at your Seattle Headquarters.
However, in order to fund this
representative accompanying the Bahamian scientist for the four-week
program. The RBDF officer would also have some scientific background
and would apply the information learned to disaster management.
NORTHCOM would cover expenses for this individual as well.
Before I proceed with making arrangements, I would like to request your

assistance/
in accommodating the RBDF officer, and to allow
both the Bahamian scientist/RBDF officer to take two days in the middle
of their four-week program (dates of your choosing) to travel to
NORTH COM Headquarters in Colorado (expenses also paid by NORTHCOM) .
20f7
I
I
9/27/20102:11 PM
009659
Please advise ASAP, as your decision is needed to proceed with

logistical arrangements .
. Thanks,
, Brooke
This. email is UNCLASSIFIED.
II
i
I
l

*To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Sykes, Sherry Z: Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES);
Colon, Frances A (WHA)
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov': 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov';
I
1 .
, Responses to Brooke's visit logistics questions. Please note, if current

OMB restrictions on discussing the
current do not change prior to a

*Cc*: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>;
<Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>; 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'
<Pamela.Toschik@noaa.qov>
*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
Dr Turner,
logistics for the trip to Seattle.
I've also included an answer to
their 2nd round of questions re: contents of a 4 week training course.
As you will see below, we are not thinking of this visit as a formal
training, but it will be a great learning opportunity for the right
candidate.
Office:
Embassy Nassau following our initial briefing to them in early June. If
observation I modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person to gain
a basic understanding of our oil fate and trajectory modeling approach.
30f7
9/27/20102:11 PM
009660
.1 ~
ii,
;I;
i
:.
! ~
i!
jI
11
II,
\J
~ f
During the 4 week

the visiting scientist will work in the Seattle
office of the Office or Response and Restoration, Emergency Response
development of daily fate and trajectory models for the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill;speak with NOAA scientists working on the spill; learn
about the General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn
about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity database; and develop
a broader understanding of how to apply these forecasting and modeling
tools to oil and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor will also
. have an opportunity to discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport models
related to the Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on the
status of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico. 2) Names of at least
three hotels so that we can research rates.
f i
II
, I
i'
i'
:j
i!
1!
,, .

luniversity.htm
I,
~
tt
1j
ii,
i I .
,!
II
,
Watertown Hotel.
Travel Lodge - Seattle University. travelodgeseattleuniversity.com 3)

General cost of taxi to and from NOAA Office to any of the recommended
hotels
" I
1i
ir
days. 4) General cost of taxi to and from Airport
~ ~
50-60 USD
!I
James Turner wrote:

about why they need it. Thanks
Subject:

From:
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
To:
To:
40f7
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM

...
009661

CC:
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov> <mailto:MackWilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubelJK@state.gov>
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail chain below)
- they would like to have a schedule of training, a description of the
training.
"!
j
If
P
.. I
II
I
This may seem like a lot to ask of NOAA, but the Bahamian government
must have this information in order to justify the expense to
. Parliament. The Prime Minister has currently banned all government
travel as a cost-saving maneuver (there are hard economic times here as
well). Therefore, anything you can provide with more detail would go a
long way in facilitating this exchange.
I,
I !,
,
. ,I!
.I
, !
,I
Thanks,
Brooke
.1
. Brooke S. Moppert
Ij
I!
Economic Officer
!!
t
!!
,
I!
Nassau, The Bahamas
II
"
:moppertbs@state.gov>
*From:* Carol Albury [

50f7
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009662

Regards
carolann albury
Director,
From:
@
.
.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,

advised by Captain Russell to submit communications regarding costing
for our technical officer to take advantage of the technical assistance
being o~fered by The US through the NOAA office. I suppose the office
is located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif Project
Office/National Weather Service) .
Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per diem,

ground transportation, round trip airfare and communications, grateful
if you would provide the following information which would help
determining cost implications;

Office:
60f7
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009663
I,
3) General cost of taxi to and from NOAA Office to any of the

recommended hotels
. Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while my
: budget has been slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS Centre
and the MET Department as very important and essentail for monitoring
the impact of the BF oil Spill particularly in our region.
I
,
l'
Regards
! .
!I
!! f'
!'
,d,
i i
IIII
!1
i1
=================
car-olann albury
Director,
. Bahamas National Geographic Information Systems (BNGIS) Centre
I!
i

<https:!lsignup.live.com!signup.aspx?id=60969>
,jlI

<https:!lsignup.live.com!signup.aspx?id=60969>

7of7
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009664
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:00:06 -0400
. To: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>
CC: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton
<Debbie. Payton@noaa.gov>, "'Allison. Reed@noaa.gov'" <Allison. Reed@noaa.gov>,
"'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'" <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner
Thanks for the clarification.
The deal is as Brendan states, i.e. both or none.
This needs to be resolved quickly. I understand they are due to arrive July 25th.
We should make a decision no later than tomorrow on whether or not the second
person would cause undue problems.
Brendan, can you take the lead on this and
let me know as soon as possible if the 2 people for a week is do-able.
Thanks
Brendan Bray wrote:
I am not familiar with the arrangements that NORTHCOM Is making in terms
I
lof funding for both Ms. Sweeting and the Bahamas military representative.
I
! Apparently (as of yesterday) the deal was for both or none. Based on a note
!
! from Bushy yesterday, it sounded as if we would be able to accommodate both
f
I visitors for one week. If this will cause undue distraction for ERD staff, then
we need to push back on Dept of State and NORTHCOM. We can also ask if
_
j combining these two persons into one visit is really necessary.
j What is still unclear is the role of the Bahamian military representative, are
i they also seeking training? Will they be in Seattle for the full week or just a -,
I few days? Something was written about the military person making a
it to
j NORTHCOM in colorado as well.
1! --Brendan
1 All:
)11
"i
; James Turner wrote:

! I
I Let me ask Brendan to respond.
1 I than I am.
l ! Mark.W.Miller wrote:
j I Jim,
My reply was based on discussions this morning with Bill Conner and Seattle
so would represent the group's opinion. We feel that we could accommodate
the scientist but the extra person would be a real challenge - we do not
have anyone to keep that person engaged.
Mark
James Turner wrote:
the latest is that they will host a
26th. NORTHCOM is paying and asked
Have been working this with Brendan
person also. the main point was to
and to limit to 1 week. This seems
Jim,
person for 1 week beginning on the

for a military-type to be included.
Bray and he is ok with the second
do this by early August (due to space)
to work for everyone.
We have discussed this issue several times over the last couple days.
ERD wants to be fully supportive of this type of request but of course
on a "not to interfere" basis with our response activities. The fact is
that our Seattle office is still fully involved seven days a week in the
lof8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009665

significant personnel increase over the last two months. The last issue
is that with the recent change in the Loop Current (the separation of
: Eddy Franklin) the risk of impact to the Bahamas which was always low
has decreased.
then ERD would like to go back to the original plan for one
i oceanographer to come to Seattle for two to four weeks to to learn NOAA
modeling applications.
If this presents significant issues let's discuss it. Thanks.
Mark
.II
III!
James Turner wrote:

. Brendan/ Debbie,
II
1\
,,
\ :
I'
Thanks
p!
ill
!I
"it
Subject:
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program - Military
Nexus
From:
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
To:
<SykesSZ@state.gov>, "Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES)" <KimEAB@state.gov>,
"Colon, Frances A (WHAl" <ColonFA@state.gov>
To:
"Colon, Frances A (WHAl" <ColonFA@state.gov>
CC:
Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov, Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Dubel, Jefferson K"
<DubelJK@state.gov>, "Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD USNORTHCOM HQs IC
jI
iI
, I
i!
!!
II
1
!
dIf
II
I
. assistance program for one Bahamian scientist at the end of this month
20f8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009666
I
I
Before I proceed with making arrangements, I would like to request

your assistance/cooperation in accommodating the RBDF officer, and to
allow both the Bahamian scientist/RBDF officer to take two days in the
middle of their four-week program (dates of your choosing) to travel
to NORTHCOM Headquarters in Colorado (expenses also paid by NORTHCOM) .
!j
I
I

logistical arrangements.
l
III
Thanks,
Brooke
II
I'
IIII
I!
1 I
I'
I;
I
~
!
I
Ii
Ii
'
; f!

*To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Sykes, Sherry Z; Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES);
*Cc:* 'Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov'; 'debbie.payton@noaa.gov'i
Ii
1'
.11
1 I
I!
11
~ ~
1;
i!
.,
i
! ,
Responses to Brooke's visit logistics questions. Please note, if

current OMB restrictions on discussing the loop current do not change
prior to a visit, we will develop appropriate guidance.
I
*From*: Brendan
*Cc*: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>i
*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
Dr Turner,
candidate.
30f8
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ -.Bahamas Technical Assistanc

...
009667
l
.1
I
I
1) NOAA to confirm that it is a four week training and location of

NOAA Office:
fi
Iq
II
II
Ii
i.
!I
~!
, r
t1
II,
,
!I
!I
l I
!!
j
11

time frame came in response to one of the original
ions asked by
Embassy Nassau following our initial
to them in early June.
.. If an experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of
ocean observation / modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person
to gain a basic understanding of our oil fate and trajectory modeling
approach.
During the 4 week stay, the visiting scientist will work in the
Seattle office of the Office or Response and Restoration, Emergency
Response Division. The visitor will have the opportunity to observe
the development of daily fate and
ectory models for the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill;speak with NOAA scientists working on the spill;
learn about the General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME);
learn about the NOAA CAMEO. tool and chemical reactivity database; and
develop a broader understanding of how to apply these forecasting and
modeling tools to oil and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor
will also have an opportunity to discuss No.AA's offshore oil transport
models related to the Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on
the status of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico. 2) Names of at
least three hotels so that we can research rates.
1 i
; I
!I
f
:r
:I
, I
Watertown Hotel.
fl
l! .
11
II'
(
~ !
!!
IIiI
i
Travel Lodge - Seattle University. travelodgeseattleunivers

3) General cost of taxi to and from NOAA o.ffice to any of the
recommended hotels
.com
II
50-60 USD
Ii
James Turner wrote:
!1
Fyi, see additional information requested by Bahamas and the

explanation about why they need it. Thanks
,~ !!
i I
I I
IJ
iI
.t
Subject:
From:
"Moppert, Brooke SIt <MoppertBS@state.gov> <mailto:MoppertBS@state.gov>
Date:
4of8
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
009668
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400

To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov> <mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>,
James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov> <mailto:James.Turner@noaa.gov>
To:
II
j
I:

James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov> <mailto:James.Turner@noaa.qov>
cc:
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov> <mailto:MackWilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubeIJK@state.gov>
<mailto:DubeIJK@state.gov>
I
~
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail chain
below) - they would like to have a schedule of training, a description
of the training and what skills the trainee would obtain at the end of
the training.
Parliament. The Prime Minister has currently banned all government
travel as a cost-saving maneuver (there are hard economic times here
as well). Therefore, anything you can provide with more detail would
go a long way in facilitating this exchange.
Thanks,
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
. Embassy of the United States of America
Nassau, The Bahamas
w)
50f8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009669
*From:* Carol Albury [mailto:calbury@

.
*To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Carol ann alburYi C Albury

There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would be
a schedule of training which is to take place over the duration of say
4 weeks. A brief on what the technical person(s) who is receiving the
training would be capable of performing as a result of the training .
. Your kind assistance is appreciated.
Regards
carolann albury
Director,
From:
.
.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,

for our technical officer to take advantage of the technical
assistance being offered by The US through the NOAA office. I suppose
the office is located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA
Pribilif Project Office/National Weather Service).

transportation, round trip airfare and communications,
1grateful if you would provide the following information which would
Ichelp determining cost implications:
i
1ground
6of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009670

NOAA Office:

recommended hotels
budget has been slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS
Centre and the MET Department as very important and essentail for
monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill particularly in our region.
Regards
========~========
carolann albury
Director,
-----------------------------------------------------------------~-----~

<https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------~,

<https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
I
i
7of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009671
8of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009672
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical As ...
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance
Program - Military Nexus]]
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 201007:56:08 -0400
To: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.lVliller@noaa.gov>
Hi Mark,
Just read your latest note to Turner.
You can reach me anytime at 240-688-1368.
The note from Bushy below is perhaps something you have heard from Seattle, but I
wanted to make sure you were aware of his position.
I think we push for no more
than one week stay for two people and more information on the military person,
e.g., skills, background, purpose of visit, etc.
Perhaps they will carry the same
skillset and there will not be too much hand holding.
Lets discuss if you wish.
--Brendan
Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program Mi 1 i t ary Nexus 1
Date:
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:29:33 -0700
From:
glen watabayashi <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>
To:
Brendan
<Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>, "william. conner"
References:
<4C3C6B3B.4060504@noaa.gov> <4C3F6DE9.7070300@noaa.gov>
<4C3F726E.3080508@noaa.gov> <4C3F7854.9070106@noaa.gov>
<4C3F7AEB.2030504@noaa.gov> <4C3F8010.8050604@noaa.gov>
We can accommodate two folks for a week without too much of a distraction.
stay is longer then just one person who will be the oceanographer type.
If the
We are hoping there will be a wind down now that the flow is getting close to
being controlled.
If Bahama folks get here too late there will not be much to
do. The threat to Bahamas is very, very small now that the Loop Current has
broken off so *it should be made clear that we do not intend to be modeling for
the Florida Current unless something unexpected happens.*
Brendan, the last thing to remember is the Payton has asked for someone back in HQ
to get the foreign national clearances that will be needed. We don't have the
time to do it from our end.
Thanks.
P.S. We have had a LOT of folks volunteer to GO TO the Bahamas.
Brendan Bray wrote:

iAll:
I am not familiar with the arrangements that NORTHCOM Is making in terms
lof funding for both Ms. Sweeting and the Bahamas military representative.
!Apparently (as of yesterday) the deal was for both or none. Based on a note
from Bushy yesterday, it sounded as if we would be able to accommodate both
1 visitors for one week. If this will cause undue distraction for ERD staff, then
we need to push back on Dept of State and NORTHCOM. We can also ask if
combining these two persons into one visit is really necessary.
they also seeking training? Will they be in Seattle for the full week or just a
lofS
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009673
[ few days?
! NORTHCOM
I--Brendan
Something was written about the military person making a visit to

in colorado as well.
! James
Turner wrote:
j j than I am.
il Mark.W.Miller wrote:
If
II.
,
Jim,
My reply was based on discussions this morning with Bill Conner and Seattle
~ 1 so would repre~ent the group's opinion. We feel that we could accommodate
11 the scientist but the extra person would be a real challenge - we do not
~ ~
! 1 have anyone to keep that person engaged.
, l
!I
, I
!. i
II
,I
I!
ti
l!
!I
~ ~
, !
1 r
~ i
!.!, '
.I '
l!
:, 1,
~ J
, I
, i '
H'
!!
!I!i!'
I r
II
;
!I
, ERD wants to be fully supportive of this type of request but of course
on a "not to interfere" basis with our response activities. The fact is
, that our Seattle office is still fully involved seven days a week in the
significant personnel increase over the last two months. The last issue
is that with the recent change in the Loop Current (the separation of
Eddy Franklin) the risk of impact to the Bahamas which was always low
has decreased.
then ERD would like to go back to the original plan for one
oceanographer to come to Seattle for two to four weeks to to learn NOAA
modeling applications.
II
Ji
I
I
I
I
I
r
20f8
person for 1 week beginning on the

for a military-type to be included.
Bray and he is ok with the second
do this by early August (due to space)
to work for everyone.
James Turner wrote:

the latest is that they will host a
26th. NORTHCOM is paying and asked
Have been working this with Brendan
person also.
the main point was to
and to limit to 1 week.
This seems
Jim,
James Turner wrote:

Brendan/Debbie,
Thanks
Subject:
Date:
13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes, Sherry Z"
9/27/20102:11 PM
009674
Ii'

To:
CC:
Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov, Mark.W.Miller@noaa.qov, "Dubel, Jefferson K"
<DubelJK@state.gov>, "Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD USNORTHCOM HQs IC
!
;
if
I,~
qI
~
III
f
II
j
H
11
j.
i:
!
II
1 !!
j
l!
~ j
l;
assistance program for one Bahamian scientist at the end of this month
opportunity, NORTHCOM has requested that there be a "mili
Nexus."
Ii
!!
,
; i
~ 1
II
II
III
I.j
,,
II
iI
i}
II

. and would apply the information learned to disaster management.

your assistance/cooperation in accommodating the RBDF officer, and to
allow both the Bahamianscientist/RBDF offic~r to take two days in the
middle of their four-week program (dates of your choosing) to travel
to NORTHCOM Headquarters in Colorado (expenses also paid by NORTHCOM) .
i ;
j!
, I
il
i!
11
II
I!
II
II
IIi I
. ! !i
,l
.i i
~
t1
tt
IIi
, I .
1I
Ii! 1
Ii
d
II
II
I
I
30fS
Thanks,
Brooke

*To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Sykes, Sherry Zi Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES);
*Cc:* 'Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov'; 'debbie.payton@noaa.gov'i
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'i 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'i
9/27/2010 2:11 PM
009675

11
; i
*Subject:* Fw:
[Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]
!!
!I l
'I'
h
!I
r

current OMB restrictions on discussing the loop current do not change
. prior to a visit, we will develop appropriate guidance.
!, !!
I!
i.I,. :
!.! I.
1f

'Allison.Reed@noaa.qov'
*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
: J
tI
II
Dr Turner,
1,
iIt~
II
! ,
I'
)I
iI
~
!~ !l

candidate.
NOAA Office:
, J

Embassy Nassau following our initial briefing to them in early June.
If an experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of
ocean observation I modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that person
to gain a basic understanding of our oil fate and trajectory modeling
approach.
the development of daily fate and trajectory models for the Deepwater
Horizon oil spillispeak with NOAA scientists working on the spill;
learn about the General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME);
learn about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity database; and
develop a broader understanding of how to apply these forecasting and
modeling tools to oil and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor
will also have an opportunity to discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport
models related to the Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on
the status of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico. 2) Names of at
least three hotels so that we can research rates.
luniversity.htm
Watertown Hotel.
40f8
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical 009676

As ...
II
II

recommended hotels
!~ II
II
I
!.
1
~
50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:
Subject:
From:
~
j,
Date:
f" .
I"
II
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400

To:

! .
I
To:
I,
I,
I .
ii
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.qov> <mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>,

CC:
I
I
f
j
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJG@state.qov> <mailto:MackWilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson Kit <DubelJK@state.gov>

below) - they would like to have a schedule of training, a description
of the training and what skills the trainee would obtain at the end of
the training.
I
I
I
I
of8
must have this information in order to justify the expense to .
travel as a cost-saving maneuver (there are hard economic times here
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009677
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ ~ Bahamas Technical As ...
. as well). Therefore, anything you can provide with more detail would
I
!
Thanks,
'\'1I
II
,I
Brooke
I
~:
I
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer

Nassau, The Bahamas
*From:* Carol Albury

.
*Snt:* Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:20 AM

There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would be
a schedule of training which is to take place over the duration of say
4 weeks. A brief on what the technical person(s) who is receiving the
Regards
=================
carol ann albury

Director,
6of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009678
From:
@
.
To: moppertbs@state.gov <mai1to:moppertbs@state.gov>;
carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs <mailto:carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs>i
.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,
I!
I
I

for our technical officer to take advantage of the technical
assistance being offered by The US through the NOAA office. I suppose
the office is located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA
Pribilif Project Office/National Weather Service).

ground transportation, round trip airfare and communications,
grateful if you would provide the following information which would
help determining cost implications:

NOAA Office:

recommended hotels
budget has been slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS
monitoring the impact of the SP oil Spill particularly in our region.
7of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Teclmical 009679

As ...
Regards
" f
!j
~
; ;
11'
II
, I
II
i, II
, carolann albury
Director,
II,
!
I

<https:/lsignup.live.com/s 1 gnup.aspx?id=60969>

<https:/lsignup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>

8of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009680
Date: Fri, 16 Jul2010 08:09:15 -0400
cc: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>, "'Aliison.Reed@noaa.gov'"
<Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>, "'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'" <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>
Thanks. Please bear in mind that the last word the State Department! the Embassy
in Nassau! and the Bahamians heard from us was "yes, we can" for 1 week.
Jim!
I am sorry about this confusion. Classic case of two people working on the same
issue. Brendan and I will get this dtraight first thing this morning and get
back to you.
Brendan - I was planning to

Bill a call right after the leaders call this
AM. Get the final decision from him.
Mark
James Turner wrote:
1 Thanks for the clarification.
The deal is as Brendan states, i.e. both or
I none. This needs to be resolved quickly. I understand they are due to arrive
July 25th.
Iwe should make a decision no later than tomorrow on whether or not the second
undue problems.
Brendan, can you take the lead on this
soon as possible if the 2 people for a week is do-able.
! person would cause

j and let me know as
I! Thanks
,1
"
! Brendan Bray wrote:

in
i All: I am not familiar with the arrangements that NORTHCOM Is
terms of funding for both Ms. Sweeting and the Bahamas military
; i representative.
Apparently (as of yesterday) the deal was for both or
! j none. Based on a note from Bushy yesterday, it sounded as if we would be
! j able to accommodate both visitors for one week. If this will cause undue
I l ' distraction for ERD
then we need to push back on Dept of State and
I 'NORTHCOM. We can also ask if combining these two persons into one visit is
really necessary.
: What is still unclear is the role of the Bahamian military representative,
" are they also seeking
Will they be in Seattle for the full week
1 or just a few days? Something was written about the military person making
a visit to NORTHCOM in colorado as well.
--Brendan
'
j
I
I
II
wrote:
arrangements than I am.
i Mark.W.Miller wrote:
Jim,
He is much more familiar with the
I
lof8
My reply was based on discussions this morning with Bill Conner and
Seattle so would represent the group's opinion. We feel that we could
accommodate the scientist but the extra person would be a real challenge
- we do not have anyone to keep that person engaged.
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009681
James Turner wrote:

the latest is that they will host a person for 1 week beginning on the
26th. NORTHCOM is paying and asked for a military-type to be
included. Have been working this with Brendan Bray and he is ok with
the second person also. the main point was to do this by early August
(due to space) and to limit to 1 week. This seems to work for
wrote:
Jim,
We have discussed this issue several times over the last couple
days. ERD wants to be fully supportive of this type of request but
of course on a "not to interfere" basis with our response
activities. The fact is that our Seattle office is still fully
involved seven days a week in the response. In addition we are very
constrained for space due to the significant personnel increase over
the last two months. The last issue is that with the recent change
in the Loop Current (the separation of Eddy Franklin) the risk of
In light of that we may want to go back to the Bahamas to see if
they still want to have this technical exchange. If they are still
interested then ERD would like to go back to the original plan for
one oceanographer to come to Seattle for two to four weeks to to
learn NOAA modeling applications.
Mark
James Turner wrote:
Brendan/Debbie,
Thanks
Subject:
. URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program Military Nexus
From:
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
To:
<SykesSZ@state.gov>, "Kim, Elizabeth AB (OE8)" <KimEAB@state.gov>,
To:
<8ykesSZ@state.gov>, "Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES)" <KimEAB@state.gov>,
CC:
Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov, Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov,
Allison.Reed@noaa.gov, Pamela.Toschik@noaa.aov,
.Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Dubel, Jefferson K~ <DubeIJK@state.gov>,
"Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD USNORTHCOM HQs IC DOS"
20f8
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM

...
009682
I
NORTHCOM, as you all know, has generously agreed to fund the

technical assistance program for one Bahamian scientist at the end
of this month at your Seattle Headquarters.
However, in order
to fund this opportunity, NORTHCOM has requested that there be a
"military Nexus. H
II
1!
d
I!
This "nexus would consist of a Royal Bahamas Defense Forc~ (RBDF)

representative accompanying the Bahamian scientist for the
four-week program. The RBDF officer would also have some
scientific background and would apply the information learned to
disaster management. NORTHCOM would cover expenses for this
individual as well.
H

your assistance/cooperation in accommodating the RBDF officer, and
to allow both the Bahamian scientist/RBDF officer to take two days
in the middle of their four-week program (dates of your choos
)
to travel to NORTHCOM Headquarters in Colorado (expenses also paid
by NORTHCOM) .
Thanks t
Brooke
III
I
II!
i!
II
II
IIi I
Ii
~ ~
, !
II
.I
II
.
,, i
i!
ji
!I
I
! 1

*Sent:* Thursday, June 24 t 2010 9:55 AM
*To:* Moppert, Brooke S: Sykes, Sherry Z; Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES);
'Allison.Reed@noaa.qov'; 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov';
*Subject:* Fw: (Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE]
. Responses to Brooke's visit logistics questions. Please note, if

current OMB restrictions on discussing the loop current do not
change prior to a visit, we will develop appropriate guidance.
30f8
! !j
1
,
II
I
9/27/20]02:11 PM
009683
1'

. *To*: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>
*Cc*: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>;
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov' <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>;
*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
Dr Turner,
~'
I
I
I,
I
Please find below the OR&R response to Embassy Nassau's questions

on logistics for the trip to Seattle.
I've also included an
answer to their 2nd round of questions re: contents of a 4 week
training course. As you will see below, we are not thinking of
this visit as a formal training, but it will be a great learning
opportunity for the right candidate.
NOAA Office:
I
}
Ii
. ! ,
11
!
! Ij
11
j
We do not have a specific 4 week training course to offer. The 4

week time frame came in response to one of the original questions
asked by Embassy Nassau following our initial briefing to them in
early June. If an experienced oceanographer came to Seattle with
knowledge of ocean observation / modeling, it may only take 2
weeks for that person to gain a basic understanding of our oil
fate and traj
modeling approach.
Seattle office of the Office or Response and Restoration,
Emergency Response Division. The visitor will have the
opportunity to observe the development of daily fate and
ectory models for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill;speak with
NOAA scientists working on the spill; learn about the General NOAA
Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn about the NOAA
CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity database: and develop a broader
understanding of how to apply these forecasting and modeling tools
.. to oil and chemical spills in the Bahamas. The visitor will also
have an opportunity to discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport
models related to the Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates
on the status of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico. 2) Names
of at least three hotels so that we can research rates.
luniversity.htm
. Watertown Hotel.
II
II
II! I
I;
Ii. I
,!
http://www . watertownseattle. coml

travelodgeseattleuniversity.com 3} General cost of taxi to and
from NOAA Office to any of the recommended hotels
10-20 USD. Recommend renting a car if you are staying more than a
few days. 4) General cost of taxi to and from Airport
4of8
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
009684
! 1
50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:

: 1I
I
, I
------------------------------------------------------ _______________ LLL, 11
I!
I! I
Subject:
I I
I'
I!d
From:
III
I
I
"Moppert, Brooke S"

<mailto:MoppertBS@state.gov>
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov> <mailto:SykesSZ@state.qov>,
<mailto:James.Turner@noaa.gov>
j1
I!
l!
I,
1;
1i
11
I)
!l
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z"
<mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>,
CC:
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov> <mailto:MackWilsonJG@state.gov>, "Oubel, Jefferson K" <DubelJK@state.gov>
I
I
II
II
(see e-mail chain

Jim: The Bahamians have one additional
below)
they would like to have a schedule of training, a
. description of the training and what skills the trainee would
obtain at the end of the training.
This may seem like a lot to ask of NOAA, but the Bahamian
government must have this information in order to justify the
expense to Parliament. The Prime Minister has currently banned
all government travel as a cost-saving maneuver (there are hard
economic times here as well). Therefore, anything you can provide
with more detail would go a long way in facilitating this
exchange.
50f8
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
009685
Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Teclmical Assistanc ...
Thanks,
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
Nassau, The Bahamas
(w)

I
1
[
!'
I,!
*From:* Carol Albury

@
.
*To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Carol ann alburYi C Albury

There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would
be a schedule of training which is to take place over the duration
of say 4 weeks. A brief on what the technical person(s) who is
receiving the training would be capable of performing as a result
, of the training.
Regards
carolann albury
Director,
,I
--------------------------------------------------------------------L~lrilli
From:
@
.
60f8
1,.
;'1."
,
9/27/20102: II PM
009686
Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ Bahamas Technical Assistanc ...

w
carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs
<mailto:carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs>;
ASSISTANCE
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,

In reference to our conversation concerning the above captioned, I
am advised by Captain Russell to submit communications regarding
costing for our technical officer to take advantage of the
technical assistance being offered by The US through the NOAA
office. I suppose the office is located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif Project Office/National Weather
Service) .
I
I
I
!
i
l}
;I
I!
!I
.Iij;,
i!
;~
Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per

diem, ground transportation, round trip airfare and
communications, grateful if you would provide the following
information which would help determining cost implications:
!!,
!
I
I
I!

NOAA Office:
I
!I
I
III

recommended hotels
Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while
my budget has been slashed this training is considered by the
BNGIS Centre and the MET Department as very important and
essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill
. particularly in our region.
III'
IIIi
I
,I
.j
i
Regards
70fS
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
009687
I
II
,
=================
carol ann albury
Director,
I!
!
! .
Hotmail:. Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it

now. <https:llsignup.live.com/signup.aspx?id-60969>
"
:1
,I
---------___________________________________________________________ ___ ll
~
'
i
I
~
!
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it
now. <https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id-60969>
(
80f8
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
009688
Subject: Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Techhical Assistance Program Military Nexus]
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:49:46 -0400
To: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>
CC: glen watabayashi <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller
<Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov>
I think reducing the duration to one week is a big improvement in terms of the
drain on staff time. We would prefer to have only one visitor, but, if Bushy is OK
with the second one coming along (both for a week only), then that seems
reasonable to me as well. So, I would like to see us support the current proposal:
2 visitors for one week.
Thanks, Mark for moving this forward and present
our position.
Bill
watabayashi wrote:
We can accommodate two folks for a week without too much of a distraction. If
the stay is longer then just one person who will be the oceanographer type.
We are hoping there will be a wind down now that the flow is getting close to
being controlled. If Bahama folks get here too late there will not be much to
do. The threat to Bahamas is very, very small now that the Loop Current has
broken off so *it should be made clear that we do not intend to be modeling for
the Florida Current unless something unexpected happens.*
Brendan, the last thing to remember is the Payton has asked for someone back in
HQ to get the foreign national clearances that will be needed. We don't have the
time to do it from our end.
Thanks.
P.S. We have had a LOT of folks volunteer to GO TO the Bahamas.
i
Brendan Bray wrote:

All: I am not familiar with the arrangements that NORTHCOM Is making in terms
of funding for both Ms. Sweeting and the Bahamas military representative.
Apparently (as of yesterday) the deal was for both or none. Based on a note
from Bushy yesterday, it sounded as if we would be able to accommodate both
visitors for one week. If this will cause undue distraction for ERD staff,
then we need to push back on Dept of State and NORTHCOM. We can also ask if
they also seeking training? Will they be in Seattle for the full week or just
a few days? Something was written about the
person making a visit to
NORTHCOM in colorado as well.
--Brendan
I
,I
James Turner wrote:

Let me ask Brendan to respond. He is much more familiar with the
Jim,
:
i
lof8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009689
!f
I
i
!
j
I
1
1, '
I
!
1i
accommodate the scientist but the extra person would be a real challenge we do not have anyone to keep that person engaged.
Mark
James Turner wrote:
the latest is that
will host a person for 1 week beginning on the
26th. NORTHCOM is paying and asked for a military-type to be included.
Have been working this with Brendan Bray and he is ok with the second
person also. the main point was to do this by early August (due to
space) and to limit to 1 week. This seems to work for everyone.
Jim,
ERD wants to be fully supportive of this type of request but of course
on a "not to interfere" basis with our response activities. The fact
is that our Seattle office is still fully involved seven days a week
in the response. In addition we are very constrained for space due to
the
ficant personnel increase over the last two months. The last
issue is that with the recent change in the Loop Current (the
separation of Eddy Franklin) the risk of impact to the Bahamas which
was always low has decreased.
still want to have this technical exchange. If they are still
interested then ERD would like to go back to the original plan for one
oceanographer to come to Seattle for two to four weeks to to learn
NOAA modeling applications.
I f this
s significant issues let's discuss it. Thanks.
. Mark
James Turner wrote:

Brendan/Debbie,
Your call, please let me know what you decide. Thanks
Subject:
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
To:
<SykesSZ@state.gov>, "Kim, Elizabeth AB IOES}" <KimEAB@state.gov>,
James Turrier <James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes, Sherry Z"
CC:
2of8
9127/20102:11 PM
009690
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov, Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov,
Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubelJK@state.gov>,
"Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD USNORT.HCOM HQs IC DOS"
IIII
I!
II.,
ii,
If'
I!1, ','
"

of this month at your Seattle Headquarters. However, in order to
fund this opportunity, NORTHCOM has requested that there be a
umi
Nexus."
This "nexus would consist of a Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF)
; NORTHCOM would cover expenses for this individual as well.
H
ii' ,
, I
II
d
~
t!
!;
!!
.; 1
;
.l
. !

your assistance/cooperation in accommodating the RBDF officer and
in the middle of their four-week program (dates of your choosing) to
travel to NORTHCOM Headquarters in Colorado (expenses also paid by
NORTHCOM) .
l

Thanks,
Brooke

'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.qov'

30fS
9/27/20102:11 PM
009691
change prior to a visit, we will develop appropriate guidance.
*From*: Brendan
*Cc*: Debbie
<Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>i
'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>
*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
d
II
I!
IIj
I
Dr Turner,
I
I
i
II,
~ l
I

logistics for the
to Seattle. I've also included an answer to
their 2nd round of questions re: contents of a 4 week training
course. As you will see below, we are not thinking of this visit as
a formal training, but it will be a
learning opportunity for
the right candidate.
NOAA Office:
We do not have a
fic 4 week training course to offer. The 4
knowledge of ocean observation / modeling, it may only take 2 weeks
for that person to gain a basic understanding of our oil fate and
trajectory modeling approach.
II
II
It
,t i'
11
II
Ii
IIII
'I
II
I
II
I
.P
the development of daily fate and
ectory models for the
Deepwater Horizon oil spillispeak with NOAA scientists working on
the spill; learn about the General NOAA Operational Modeling
Environment (GNOME); learn about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical
reactivity database; and develop a broader understanding of how to
apply these forecasting and modeling tools to oil and chemical
spills in the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an opportunity to
discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport models related to the
Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on the status of the
loop current in the Gulf of Mexico. 2) Names of at least three
hotels so that we can research rates.
,I t
"
'I!t
j
I!
II
I
1
Ii
II
Silver Cloud Hotel - University. http://www.silvercloud.com

!university.htm
Watertown Hotel. http://www.watertownseattle.com/
Travel Lodge - Seattle University. travelodgeseattleuniversity.comy
, recommended hotels
of8
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
009692
50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:
Subject:
From:
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.qov> <mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>,
To:
CC:
below) - they would like to have a schedule of training, a
description of the training and what skills the trainee would obtain
at the end of the training.
'travel as a cost-saving maneuver (there are hard economic times here.
as well). Therefore, anything you can provide with more detail would
50f8
9127/2010 2: II PM
009693
I Thanks,
j:
Brooke
L
!
I
Ii
1
.I!
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
, Embassy of the United States of America
'
Nassau, The Bahamas
!
I
I
1.
,.
iI
.I
! :'
i:
! :

.
I
i:
II,
I
I;
i
I
I

, There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would
of say 4 weeks. A brief on what the 'technical person(s) who is
: : receiving the training would be capable of performing as a result of
the training.
Regards
., =================
,~i carol ann

Director,
lt
From:
6of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas
f ;
T~clmical
009694
Assistanc ...

<mailto:carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs>}
.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
I
,\1j
Good Day Brooke,
!j
1
i
!I
1 {

costing for our technical officer to take advantage of the technical
assistance
offered by The US through the NOAA office. I
suppose the office is located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA
(NOAA Pribilif
ect Office/National Weather Service).

ground transportation, round trip airfare and communications,
grateful if you would provide the following information which would
help determining cost implications:
q
!r
j
Ii
I
IIi
d
II
)I
l!
I I
!I
Ii
I!
!!
i,

NOAA Office:
and location of
I!Ii
Ii, ,
I'
!I
II
I!
i {
11
,I

recommended hotels
!1
I!
II
I
II
II
. Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while
my budget has been slashed this training is considered by the BNGIS
monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill particularly in our
region.
Regards
7of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009695
II
carolann albury
Director,
! ;
i
i
!r
I
I: .
j
I

<https:llsignup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>

<https:llsignup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
I.

80f8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009696
Date: Fri, 16 JI.lI 201008:54:34 -0400
CC: glen watabayashi <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller
FYI - The
National Visitor clearance is close to completion for the first
vis
Ms. Sweeting. I have not received anything on the 2nd person yet.

I think reducing the duration to one week is a big improvement in terms of the
drain on staff time. We would prefer to have only one
but, if Bushy is
OK with the second one coming along (both for a week only), then that seems
reasonable to me as well. So, I would like to see us support the current
proposal: 2 visitors for one week.
Thanks, Mark for moving this forward and presenting our

Bill
glen watabayashi wrote:

can accommodate two folks for a week without too much of a distraction. If
I the stay is longer then just one person who will be the oceanographer type.
I We
i We
are hoping there will be a wind down now that the flow is getting close to
I being controlled. If Bahama folks get here too late there will not be much to
I do.
The threat to Bahamas is very, very small now that the Loop Current has
off so *it should be made clear that we do not intend to be modeling
for the Florida Current unless something unexpected happens.*
, broken
I Brendan,
the last thing to remember is the Payton has asked for someone back
the foreign national clearances that will be needed. We don't
in HQ to
have the time to do it from our end.
I Thanks.
! P.S. We have had a LOT of folks volunteer to GO TO the Bahamas.
.1'
Brendan Bray wrote:

All: I am not familiar with the arrangements that NORTHCOM Is making in
representative. Apparently (as of yesterday) the deal was for both or none.
Based on a note from Bushy yesterday, it sounded as if we would be able to
accommodate both visitors for one week. If this will cause undue distraction
for ERD staff, then we need to push back on Dept of State and NORTHCOM. We
can also ask if combining these two persons into one visit is really
necessary.
What is still unclear is the role of the Bahamian military representative,
are they also seeking training? Will they be in Seattle for the full week or'
just a few days? Something was written about the military person making a
, visit to NORTHCOM in colorado as well.
j
.~ .
10fS
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009697
,! , -- Brendan
!
II'
II
I
James Turner wrote:

Let me ask Brendan to respond. He is much more familiar with the
Jim,
I ..
Mark
I
!
f
!
My
was based on discussions this morning with Bill Conner and
accommodate the scientist but the extra person would be a real
we do not have anyone to keep that person engaged.
I
I
~
I
i
II
James Turner wrote:

the latest is that they will host a person for 1 week beginning on the
26th. NORTHCOM is paying and asked for a military-type to be included.
Have been working this with Brendan Bray and he is ok with the second
person also. the main point was to do this by early August (due to
space) and to limit to 1 week. This seems to work for everyone.
We have discussed this issue several times over the last
days. ERD wants to be fully supportive of this type of
but
of course on a "not to interfere" basis with our response
activities. The fact is that our Seattle office is still ful
involved seven days a week in the response. In addition we are very
constrained for space due to the significant personnel increase over
the last two months. The last issue is that with the recent change
in the Loop Current (the separation of Eddy Franklin) the risk of
they still want to have this technical exchange. If they are still
interested then ERD would like to go back to the original plan for
one oceanographer to come to Seattle for two to four weeks to to
learn NOAA modeling applications.
. James Turner wrote:

Brendan/Debbie,
Your call, please let me know what you decide. Thanks
. i
---------------------------------------------------------------------:~!!ill
Subject:
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program ~;;;~ary Nexus

Date:
TUe, 13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
To:
. James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.qov>, "Sykes, Sherry Z"
~<SykesSZ@state.gov>, "Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES) "
I "Colon, Frances A (WHA)" <ColonFA@state.gov>
2of8
i, I
q,
ii
{UI
11 '
9/27/20102:11 PM
009698
To:
CC:
Brendan.Bray@hoaa.gov, Debbie.Payton@rioaa.gov,
. Allison.Reed@noaa.gov, Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov,
Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Dubel, Jefferson K" <DubeIJK@state.gov>,
"Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD USNORTHCOM HQs IC DOS"
Il
i
J
II
1
I
!

of this month at your Seattle Headquarters. However, in order to
fund this opportunity, NORTHCOM has requested that there be a
"military Nexus. u
II
I
j
, !
!
!
This "nexus U would consist of a Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF)

representative accompanying the Bahamian scientist for the
four-week program. The RBDF officer would also have some
scientific background and would apply the information learned to
disaster management. NORTHCOM would cover expenses for this
individual as well.
, i

your assistance/cooperation in accommodating the RBDF officer, and
in the middle of their four-week program (dates of your choosing)
to travel to NORTHCOM Headquarters in Colorado (expenses also paid
by NORTHCOM}.
I
1

!
.1
Thanks,
Brooke
II

30f8
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009699
*Subject; * Fw; [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL AS.SISTANCE]
I,.
Responses to Brooke's visit

questions. Please note, if
prior to a visit, we will
appropriate guidance.
, !
I!
! ,
'
------------------------------------------------------ -----------------~
Dr Turner,
Please find below the OR&R response to Embassy Nassau's questions

on logistics for the trip to Seattle. I've also included an answer
to their 2nd round of questions re: contents of a 4 week training
course. As you will see below, we are not thinking of this visit
as a formal training, but it will be a
learning opportunity
for the right candidate.
NOAA Office:
H
iI
:I
',I
L
!
I
I
III,!
d
,q.
'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov
*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:
I!Ii
. *From*: Brendan Bray

*To*: James Turner
*Cc*: Debbie Payton
II
t liI
I!,
We do not have a specific 4 week

course to offer. The 4
knowledge of ocean observation / modeling, it may only take 2
weeks for that person to gain a basic understanding of our oil
fate and trajectory modeling approach.
the 4 week stay, the visiting scientist will work in the

; Seattle office of the Office or Response and Restoration,
,
Response Division. The visitor will have the opportunity
to observe the development of daily fate and
ectory models for
the Deepwater Horizon oil spillispeak with NOAA scientists working
on the spilli learn about the General NOAA Operational Modeling
Environment (GNOME); learn about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical
database; and develop a broader understanding of how to
apply these forecasting and modeling tools to oil and chemical
Is in the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an opportunity
to discuss NOAA's offshore oil transport models related to the
. Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on the status of the
, loop current in the Gulf of Mexico. 2) Names of at least three
hotels so that we can research rates.
II
,:
II
,I
II
, !
I!
I'
; ,I
iI
Ii
I!, !
Ii
!I
It
'I
I
!
'I
4of8
9/27/20102:11 PM

...
009700
t
Watertown Hotel. http://www.watertownseattle.com/

travelodgeseattleuniversity.comy 3) General cost of taxi to and
from NOAA Office to any of the recommended hotels
I!
:. III
II
III!
. I
:
50-60 USD
I
I!
-q
------------------------------------------------------------------------ I!Ii
James Turner wrote:
ii

II
I!
Subject:
II
IIi
From:
. <mailto:MoppertBS@state.gov>
:I!
, I
Date:
Tue, 22Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
II
I!
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z"
James Turner
<mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>,
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z"
<mailto:SykesSZ@state.qov>,
CC:
. below) - they would like to have a schedule of training, a
description of the training and what skills the trainee would
obtain at the end of the training.
50f8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009701
government must have this information in order to j
the
expense to Parliament. The Prime Minister has currently banned all
government travel as a cost-saving maneuver (there are hard
economic times here as well). Therefore, anything you can provide
with more detail would go a long way in facilitating this
exchange.
II
!
Thanks,
Brooke
t
I
I
!I
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
!q!
rU1
r!
pI
Nassau, The Bahamas
moppertbs@state.gov <mailto:moppertbs@state.qov>
Ii
,.
,
,,1,
, II
. I
i
IiI!
'I!
I'
; I
.I :
!I
~
*From:* Carol Albury [m

.
*To:* Moppert, Brooke Si Carolann albury; C Albury
! !!
I!
1!
I!

There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that would
of say 4 weeks. A brief on what the technical person(s) who is
receiving the training would be capable of performing as a result
of the training.
Your kind assistance is appreciated .
.Regards
=================
carolann albury
Director,
60fS
9/27/20 I0 2: 11 PM
009702
Bahamas National Geographic Information Systems' (BNGIS) Centre
From:
.
To: moppertbs@state.gov <mailto:moppertbs@state.gov>i
<mailto:carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs>i
.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,
.. ,i
II
f
Thank you for taking my call .

costing for our technical officer to take advantage of the
technical assistance being offered by The US through the NOAA
office. I suppose the office is located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif Project Office/National Weather
Service) .

ground transportation, round trip airfare and
communications,
if you would provide the following

NOAA Office:

recommended hotels
I
I!
I
IIt
Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and while
70f8
9/27/20102: II PM
009703
my budget has been slashed this

is considered by the
BNGIS Centre and the MET Department as very important and
essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill
particularly in our region.
Your kind assistance is most
Regards
carol ann albury

Director,
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with

by Microsoft. Get it
now. <https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it

now. <https://signuo.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>

of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009704
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 201009:23:44 -0400
CC: James Turner <James. Turner@noaa.gov>, "'Allison. Reed@noaa.govlll
<Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>, "'Pamela. Tosch ik@noaa.govlll <Pamela. Toschik@noaa.gov>
Mark, et al.
The current plan is for the Bahamian visitors to arrive in Seattle on July 25th
and begin working with ERD on July 26th. I am still waiting for more information
on the Bahamian military contact's information for security clearance purposes,
but I assume this person will accompany Ms. Sweeting.
--Brendan
Jim,
Again sorry for the last minute disconnect. ERD will support the present plan.
Our understanding is two visitors for one week at the end of July. Correct?
Mark
Turner wrote:
.James
Thanks. Please bear
i
I
!!
in mind that the last word the State Department, the

Embassy in Nassau, and the Bahamians heard from us was "yes, we can" for 1
week.
!I Jim,
I
I am sorry about this confusion. Classic case of two people working on the
j I same issue. Brendan and I will get this dtraight first thing this morning
d
and
back to you.
,;
I
;,
f;
'I
II ~
Brendan - I was planning to give Bill a call right after the leaders call
this AM. Get the final decision from him.
II
Mark
II! !
l
ji
J ames T urner
wro t e:
,Thanks for the clarification.
The deal is as Brendan states, i.e. both
, or none. This needs to be resolved quickly. I understand they are due to
arrive July 25th.
jl
I
I'
It;
11
We should make a decision no later than tomorrow on whether or not the

second person would cause undue problems.
Brendan, can you take the lead
; on this and let me know as soon as possible if the 2 people for 'a week is
do-able.
Thanks
L
tt
lof8
Brendan Bray wrote:

representative. Apparently (as of yesterday) the deal was for both or
none. Based on a note from Bushy yesterday, it sounded as if we would
be able to accommodate both visitors for one week. If this will cause
undue distraction for ERD staff, then we need to push back on Dept of
State and NORTHCOM. We can also ask if combining these two persons into
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009705
one visit is really necessary.

What is still unclear is the role of the Bahamian military
representative, are they also seeking t~aining? Will they be in Seattle
for the full week or just a few days? Something was written about the
military person making a visit to NORTHCOM in colorado as well.
--Brendan
James Turner wrote:
Seattle so would represent the group's opinion. We feel that we
could accommodate the scientist but the extra person would be a real
challenge - we do not have anyone to keep that person engaged.
Turner wrote:
latest is that they will host a person for 1 week beginning on
26th. NORTHCOM is paying and asked for a military-type to be
included. Have been working this with Brendan Bray and he is ok
the second person also. the main point was to do this by
August (due to space) and to limit to 1 week. This seems to
work for everyone.
Jim,
. We have discussed this issue several times over the last couple
days. ERD wants to be fully supportive of this type of request
but of course on a "not to interfere" basis with our response
involved seven days a.week in the response. In addition we are
very constrained for space due to the significant personnel
increase over the last two months. The last issue is that with
the recent change in the Loop Current (the separation of Eddy
Franklin) the risk of impact to the Bahamas which was always low
. has decreased.
they still want to have this technical exchange. If they are
still interested then ERD would like to go back to the original
plan for one oceanographer to come to Seattle for two to four
weeks to to learn NOAA modeling applications.
Turner wrote:
Brendan/Debbie,
Thanks
Subject:
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program Nexus
20f8
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
009706

Date:
13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
<James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes, Sherry Z"
"Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES)"
"Colon, Frances A (WHA)"
!
!
To:
<James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes, Sherry Z"

"Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES)"
"Colon, Frances A (WHA)"
t j
Ii
l;
II
!!
d,
Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov,
Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov,
"Dubel, Jefferson K"
"Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD
HQs IC DOS" <Susan.Reinert@northcom.mil>,
II,,t
"
! l
Ij
II
. j !
.; 11,<
11II
technical assistance program for one Bahamian scientist at the
end of this month at your Seattle Headquarters.
However, in
order to fund this opportunity, NORTH COM has requested that
there be a "military Nexus."
This "nexus" would consist of a Royal Bahamas Defense Force
(RBDF) representative accompanying the Bahamian scientist for
the four-week program. The RBDF officer would also have some
scientific background and would apply the information learned
to disaster management. NORTHCOM would cover expenses for
this individual as well.
11
, i!
,1
IiIi
,
I ';
i;
Ij
II
I!
II
Before I
with making arrangements, I would like to
request your assistance/cooperation in accommodating the RBDF
officer, and to allow both the Bahamian scientist/RBDF officer
to take two days in the middle of their four-week program
(dates of your choosing) to travel to NORTHCOM Headquarters in
Colorado (expenses also paid by NORTHCOM) .
Thanks,
Brooke
30f8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009707
*From:* James Turner [mailto:James.Turner@noaa.gov)

*To:* Moppert, Brooke S; Sykes, Sherry Zi Kim, Elizabeth AB
(OES); Colon, Frances A (WHA)
*Subject:* Fw: [Fwd: FW: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE)
Responses to Brooke's visit logistics questions. Please note,

if current OMB restrictions on discussing the loop current do
not change prior to a visit, we will deve
appropriate
guidance.
II
I
I'
1
, !
~
, f
I!
II
: II
:
-----------------------------------------------------------------~-----ri
II

!
*Cc*: Debbie Payton <Debbie.pa Yton@noaa. go v > ; 1 1 1
.
. i
*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
,
II
l
Dr Turner,
questions on logistics for the trip to Seattle.
I've also
included an answer to their 2nd round of questions re:
. contents of a 4 week
course. As you will see below,
. we are not thinking of this visit as a formal training, but it
will be a great learning opportunity for the
candidate.
and
location of NOAA Office:
We do not have a specific 4 week training course to offer.
The 4 week time frame came in response to one of the original
questions asked by Embassy Nassau following our initial
briefing to them in early June.
If an experienced
oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of ocean
observation / modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that
; person to gain a basic understanding of our oil fate and
, trajectory model
approach.
During the 4 week stay, the visiting scientist will work in
the Seattle office of the Office or Response and Restoration,
Emergency Response Division.
The visitor will have the
trajectory models for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill;speak
with NOAA scientists working on the spill; learn about the
General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn
40f8
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009708
j
I
I!
i,
I.
\
about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical react

database;
develop a broader understanding of how to apply these
and modeling tools to Oil and chemical spills in
Bahamas. The visitor will also have an opportunity to
Horizon, and receive daily updates on the status of
the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico. 2) Names of at least
I
I
I
;
I:
II
J'
Ij
I I
III
I!
Watertown Hotel.
Travel Lodge - Seattle University ..

t
ity.com 3) General cost of taxi to
and from NOAA Office to any of the recommended hotels
Ii
I
II
11
I
I
II
II
1!
II
II
! ,
II
i:
10-20 USD.
Recommend renting a car if you are staying more
than a few days. 4) General cost of taxi to and from Airport
50-60 USD
!I
I!
11
James Turner wrote:

IIII
-----------------------------------------------------------------~----~rl
l;
I
II
~ ~
i
Subject:
III

From:
22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
50f8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009709
CC:
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn Gil <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov>
<mailto:Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov>, "Dubel, Jefferson K"
<DubelJK@state.gov> <mailto:DubelJK@state.gov>
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail

. chain below)
they would like to have a schedule of training,
a description of the training and what skills the trainee
would obtain at the end of the training.
expense to Parliament. The Prime Minister has currently
banned all government travel as a cost-saving maneuver (there
are hard economic times here as well). Therefore, anything
you can provide with more detail would go a long way in
Thanks,
Brooke
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
Nassau, The Bahamas
*From:* Carol Albury [


There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that
would be a schedule of training which is to take place over
6of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009710
the duration of say 4 weeks. A brief on what the technical

person(s) who is receiving the training would be capable of
; performing as a result of the training.
Regards
carol ann albury

Director,
~ ~
------------------------------------------------------ ---------~----~--rl
s
From:
.
<mailto:carolannalbury@bahamas.gov.bs>i
.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,
~ !
1 :
! ~
!!
! t
I!
,I
. I
II!i
I
I
In reference to our conversation concerning the above

captioned, I am advised by Captain Russell to submit
communications regarding costing for our technical officer to
take advantage of the technical assistance being offered by
The US through the NOAA office. I suppose the office is
located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif
Project Office/National Weather Service).
II"I
'j!
j
II
Ij
I

I,
I
1) NOAA to confirm that it is a four week training and

I
70f8
2) Names of at least three hotels so that we can research
9/27/20102: II PM
009711
rates.

recommended hotels
Captain has stressed that funding may be an issue for us and

while my budget has been slashed this training is considered
by the BNGIS Centre and the MET Department as very important
and essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill
I,
I'
]
I
Regards
I
I
I
j
carolann albury
Director,
----------------------------------------------------------------~-~-
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get

it now. <https:llsignup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
-------------------------------------------------------------------Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get

it now. <https:l/signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
/'--~--~--
--.."
Brendan M. Bray <brendan.bray@noaa.gov> !

l____N_O__AA__-_N_at__io_n_al_O_c_e_a_n_S_e_N__ic_e________________~)
80fS
9/27/20102:11 PM
009712
From: Allison Reed <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul2010 09:53:05 -0400
CC: James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>, Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>,
"'Pamela. Toschik@noaa.gov'" <Pamela. Toschik@noaa.gov>
That is correct.
Thanks Mark,
Allison
1,1m,
J'
! Again
sorry for the last minute disconnect. ERD will support the present plan.
t Our understanding is two visitors for one week at the end of July. Correct?
I
I
,i Mark
I James
Turner wrote:
Thanks. Please bear in mind that the last word the State Department, the
1, Embassy in Nassau, and the Bahamians heard from us was "yes, we can" for 1
! week.
I, Mark.W.Miller wrote:
II
j
I
II
!1
Jim,
i ! ,
I . I am sorry about this confusion. Classic case of two people working on the
11 same issue. Brendan and I will get this dtraight first thing this morning
!1 and get back to you.
!
[1
! !
,1, I
II i
i.
II, j
l1
'jBrendan - I was planning to give Bill a call right after the leaders call
~ j this AM. Get the final decision from him.
I
o
Ii
!
Mark
James Turner wrote,
II. Thanks for the clarification.
II! ,
, !
1j
!
iI
.\ i
11
!i I
I
!
lof8
The deal is as Brendan states, i.e. both

or none. This needs to be resolved quickly. I understand they are
arrive July 25th.
We should make a decision no later than tomorrow on whether or not the

second person would cause undue problems.
Brendan, can you take the lead
on this and let me know as soon as possible if the 2 people for a week is
do-able.
Thanks
Brendan Bray wrote:
representative. Apparently (as of yesterday) the deal was for both or
none. Based on a note from Bushy yesterday, it sounded as if we would
be able to accommodate both visitors for one week. If this will cause
undue distraction for ERD staff, then we need to push back on Dept of
State and NORTHCOM. We can also ask if combining these two persons into.
one visit is really necessary.
representative, are they also seeking training? Will they be in Seattle
9/27/20102:11 PM
009713
Re: [Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ ~ Bahamas Technical Assistanc ...
for the full week or just a few days? Something was written about the
military person making a visit to NORTH COM in colorado as well.
--Brendan
James Turner wrote:
Jim
Seattle so would represent the group's opinion. We feel that we
could accommodate the scientist but the extra person would be a real
challenge
we do not have anyone to keep that person engaged.
Mark
James Turner wrote:
the latest is that they will host a person for 1 week beginning on
the 26th. NORTHCOM is paying and asked for a military-type to be
included. Have been working this with Brendan Bray and he is ok
with the second person also. the main point was to do this by
early August (due to space) and to limit to 1 week. This seems to
work for everyone.
Jim,
involved seven days a week in the response. In addition we are
increase over the last two months, The last issue is that with
Franklin) the risk of impact to the Bahamas which was always low
has decreased.
they still want to have this technical exchange. If they are
.!
1'
Ii
t f
II
t {
: II ,i
11
I!
II
11
i ~
11
! ~
Ii"
'Ii I
i
Ii
11
!1
{}
,I
I!
III!
,Ii
, I
I
I
I!
, 11
III!
; , !
, j
i!
,I
!I
James Turner wrote:

Brendan/Debbie,
Thanks
Subject:
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program Military Nexus
From:
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
2of8
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009714
To:
<SykesSZ@state.gov>, "Kim, Elizabeth AB (OES)"
<KimEAB@state.gov>, "Colon, Frances A (WHA)"
<ColonFA@state.gov>
,i
I
1
i
i
To:
James Turner <James.Turner@noaa.gov>, "Sykes,
Z"
<KimEAB@state.gov>, "Colon, Frances A (WHA)"
<ColonFA@state.gov>
CC:
Allison.Reed@noaa.gov, Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov,
<DubelJK@state.aov>, "Reinert, Susan L crv USA NORAD
USNORTHCOM HQs rc DOS" <Susan.Reinert@northcom.mil>,
I!

However, in
order to fund this opportunity, NORTHCOM has requested that
the four-week program. The RBDF officer would also have some
to disaster management. NORTHCOM would cover expenses for
i!
Before I proceed with making arrangements, I would like to

(dates of your choosing) to travel to NORTH COM Headquarters in
Thanks,
Brooke
of8
9/27/2010 2:11 PM
009715

*To:* Moppert, Brooke Si Sykes, Sherry Z; Kim, Elizabeth AB
*Cc:* 'Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov'i 'debbie.payton@noaa.gov'i
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'; 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'i

not change prior to a visit, we will develop appropriate
guidance.
1
I
1
I
t
!
1
'

'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov' <Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>i
*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
Dr Turner,
i
j
t
~.

. questions on logistics for the trip to Seattle.
I've also
contents of a 4 week training course. As you will see below,
we are not thinking of this visit as a formal training, but it
The 4 week time frame came in response to one of the original
briefing to them in early June. If an experienced
oceanographer came to Seattle with knowledge of ocean
observation / modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that
\ person to gain a basic understanding of our oil fate and
Emergency Response Division. The visitor will have the
trajectory models for the Deepwater Horizon oil spillispeak
with NOAA scientists working on the spilli learn about the
General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME)i learn
about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity database;
and develop a broader understanding of how to apply these
forecasting and modeling tools to oil and chemical spills in
4of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009716
the Bahamas. The visitor will also have an opportunity to

Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on the status of
/university.htm
Watertown Hotel.

travelodgeseattleuniversity.com 3) General cost of taxi to
1
10-20 USD. Recommend renting a car if you are staying more

than a few days. ,4) General cost of taxi to and from Airport
. 1
50-60 USD
James Turner wrote:

---.-------------------------------------------,-------------------------rI
i
, I
I
I'II
Subject:
I!
11
From:
d,
,,

<mailto;MoppertBS@state.gov>
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
J (
: I'
,
,i
!1
1I
!
II
To:
"Sykes, Sherry Z" <SykesSZ@state.gov>
<mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner
To:
<mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner
CC:
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov>
50f8
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009717
.I '
,
I
I
II
'
'<mailto:Mack-WilsonJG@state.qov>. "Dubel. Jefferson K"

<OubelJK@state.gov> <mailto:DubelJK@state.gov>
Jim: The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail

chain below) - they would like to have a schedule of training.
,. a description of the training and what skills the trainee
expense to Parliament. The Prime Minister has currently
II'
!

*From:* Carol Albury [mailt

.
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 22. 2010 8:20 AM

There is one more thing that I would need from NOAA and that
would be a schedule of training which is to take place over
the duration of say 4 weeks. A brief on what the technical
person(s) who is receiving the training would be capable of
performing as a result of the training.
6of8
9/27/2010 2~11 PM
009718
I
I
iI
'I,
Regards
;i
carolann albury
! !
Director,
,Jj 1~
lI iI
,,
j'
ii
j
-~
1:
I!
1
I
)! i\
"
'I' 1
--------------------------------------------------- _____________ L__ ~ ___ ~I
..
From:
@
.
<mailto:
.
,To: mopeertbs@state.gov <mailto:moppertbs@state.gov>i
@bahamas.gov.bs
<mailto:
@bahamas.gov.bs>i
@
<mailto:c
.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:46 -0400
Good Day Brooke,
"11
II
I!
II
.com"I'i
. ,I
IiII
! I
II
1 \
.i I
'II
: I!
! '
In reference to our conversation concerning the above

captioned, I am advised by Captain Russell to submit
communications regarding costing for our technical officer to
take advantage of the technical assistance being offered by
The US through the NOAA office. I suppose the office is
located at 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA (NOAA Pribilif
Project Office/National Weather Service).
II
~
!! 1J
, !
I
I
, Understanding that the Government may be required to fund per


2) Names of at least three hotels so that we can research

rates.
7of8
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009719
I!

recommended hotels
II
l!
i;
f
::.
Ii
!I

, while my budget has been slashed this training is considered
, and essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill
III
I!
!l
Ii
it
,1
Regards
,, i I
'II i
I
!
I
I!
Ii! I
I!
===========~=====
carolann albury
Director
Ir
Ii
iI
II
________________________________________________________________ ._lL __ ~~
'
'.
II
:::::::~::::::::::~:::~:::::~::::::::::::~:::~:::::::::~-:::--.,- .- :~rI
it now. <https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
r-- Allison Reed <allison.r~ed@noaa.gov>l
I
I
\
80f8
I
I
Intemational Affairs Specialist

NOAA Intemational
Department of Commerce
i
/
9/27/20102:11 PM

...
009720
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:04:55 -0400
To: "'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "'james.turner@noaa.gov'"
<James.Turner@noaa.gov>
.
cc: "'Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov'" <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>, "'Aliison.Reed@noaa.gov'"
<Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>, "'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'" <Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov>
Correct. It is
appreciation
great that we can do this.
Please convey my thanks and
Message ----From: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

Cc: Brendan Bray <Brendan.Brav@noaa.gov>; 'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'
<Allison.Reed@noaa.gov>; 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov' <Pamela,Toschik@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul 16 09:15:04 2010
Subject: Re:' (Fwd: URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program Mili tary Nexus]
Jim,
Again sorry for the last minute disconnect. ERD will support the present
plan. Our understanding is two visitors for one week at the end of July.
Correct?
Mark
James Turner wrote:
1 Thanks. Please bear in mind that the last word the State Department,
! the Embassy in Nassau, and the Bahamians heard from us was "yes, we
[can" for 1 week.
i Mark. W, Miller wrote:
!IJ~m,
~!
IIi. on
I am sorry about this confusion.
the same issue. Brendan and I
!i this
IIII
II
Classic case of two people working

will get this dtraight first thing
morning and get back to you.
Brendan - I was planning to give Bill a call right after the leaders
call this AM. Get the final decision from him.
Mark
II
11
James Turner wrote:

Thanks for the clarification.
The deal is as Brendan states, i.e.
'j both or none. This needs to be resolved quickly. I understand they
"1 are due to arrive July 25th.
I.
11; We should make a decision no later than tomorrow on whether or not

I~' the second person would cause undue problems.
Brendan, can you
! take the lead on this and let me know as soon as possible if the 2
I people for a week is do-able.
Thanks
Brendan Bray wrote:

All: I am not familiar with the arrangements that NORTHCOM Is
making in terms of funding for both Ms. Sweeting and the Bah.amas
of8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009721
I
I
I
!
.I
I
iI
I
if
!
'military representative. Apparently (as of yesterday) the deal was

for both or none. Based on a note from Bushy yesterday, it sounded
as if we would be able to accommodate both visitors for one week.
If this will cause undue distraction for ERD staff, then we need to
push back on Dept of State and NORTHCOM. We can also ask if
representative, are they also seeking training? Will they be in
Seattle for the full week or just a few days? Something was
written about the military person making a visit to NORTHCOM in
.. colorado as well.
--Brendan
,
i
James Turner wrote:

Jim,
I
I
t
i1
Ii
I!
I!,
i ;~
I [
I, ,~
I'
!!
! !.
i, {~
I i
If
. My reply was based on discussions this morning with Bill Conner

and Seattle so would represent the group's opinion. We feel that
we could accommodate the scientist but the extra person would be
a real challenge - we do not have anyone to keep that person
engaged.
,I
Mark
James Turner wrote:
. the latest is that they will host a person for 1 week beginning
on the 26th. NORTHCOM is paying and asked for a military-type
to be included. Have been working this with Brendan Bray and he
is ok with the second person also. the main point was to do
this by early August (due to space) and to limit to 1 week.
This seems to work for everyone.
Jim,
involved seven days a week in the response. In addition we are
increase over the last two months. The last issue is that with
Franklin) the risk of impact to the Bahamas which was always
low has decreased.
I
1
Ii
I
I
20f8
:.'1I,
I'
!, I,
!1
I!
I ij
i
Ii
i
I
I
In light of that we may want to go back to the Bahamas to see

if they still want to have this technical exchange. If they are
Turner wrote:
Brendan/Debbie,
Thanks
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009722
--c--------------------------------------------------------------~c",i:II.
Subject:
URGENT PLEASE READ - Bahamas Technical Assistance Program Military Nexus
From:
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:09:57 -0400
To:
<KimEAB@state.gov>, "Colon, Frances A (WHA) " <ColonFA@state.gov>
To:
<KimEAB@state.gov>, "Colon, Frances A (WHA) " <ColonFA@state.gov>
CC:
Allison.Reed@noaa.gov, Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov,
<DubelJK@state.gov>, "Reinert, Susan L CIV USA NORAD
USNORTHCOM HQs IC DOS" <Susan.Reinert@northcom.mil>,

However, in
order to fund this opportunity, NORTHCOM has requested that

the four-week program.
The RBDF officer would also have some
to disaster management.
NORTHCOM would cover expenses for
Before I proceed with making arrangements, I would like to

(dates of your choosing) to travel to NORTHCOM Headquarters in

Thanks,
30f8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009723
Brooke
i
*To:* Moppert, Brooke Si Sykes, Sherry Z; Kim, Elizabeth AB
*Cc:* 'Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov'i 'debbie.payton@noaa.gov'i
'Allison.Reed@noaa.gov'; 'Pamela.Toschik@noaa.gov'i
I~
II
d
!
I1
I!, !
! ,

not change prior to a-visit, we will develop appropriate
guidance.
!! I1
II
i ~
!i
l!
________________________________________________________________________ 1
*From*: Brendan Bray <Srendan.Bray@noaa.gov>

*Sent*: Thu Jun 24 08:26:46 2010
Dr Turner,
questions on logistics for the
to Seattle.
I've also
contents of a 4 week training course. As you will see below,
we are not thinking of this visit as a formal training, but it
1) -NOAA to confirm that it is a four week training and
The 4 week time frame carne in response to one of the original
briefing to them in early June. If an experienced
oceanographer carne to Seattle with knowledge of ocean
observation I modeling, it may only take 2 weeks for that
person to gain a basic understanding of our oil fate and
40f8
9/27/20102:11 PM
009724

Emergency Response Division.
The visitor will have the
ectory models for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill;speak
with NOAA scientists working on the spill; learn about the
General NOAA
Modeling Environment (GNOME); learn
about the NOAA CAMEO tool and chemical reactivity database;
and develop a broader understanding of how to
these
forecasting and model
tools to oil and chemical
s in
the Bahamas.
The visitor will also have an opportunity to
Deepwater Horizon, and receive daily updates on the status of
I
l
Ii
1

http://www.silvercloud.com/university.htm
Watertown Hotel.

travelodgeseattleunivers
.com 3) General cost of taxi to
I
1
!
jt
II
!I;i
10-20 USD.
Recommend rent
a car if you are staying more
than a few days. 4) General cost of taxi to and from Airport
II,
I
,!
50-60 USD
II
1
!
James Turner wrote:
II
,I
, !
, see additional information requested by Bahamas and the

explanation about why they need it.
Thanks
, .
I!
---------~-------------------------------------------------------~------li
Subject:

From:
. , Ii
II!l
II
Date:
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:42:59 -0400
To:
,"Sykes, Sherry Zit <SykesSZ@state.gov>
. <mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner
50f8
9/27/20 IO 2: 11 PM

...
009725
: To:

'<mailto:SykesSZ@state.gov>, James Turner
!i
Ii
cc:
i;
) i
"Mack-Wilson, Joslyn G" <Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov>

<mailto:Mack-WilsonJG@state.gov>, "Cubel, Jefferson K"
<DubelJK@state.gov> <mailto:DubelJK@state.gov>
II
---I!I
,-
Jim:
The Bahamians have one additional request (see e-mail
chain below)
would like to have a schedule of
a description of the training and what skills the trainee
I
I
,I
IIIi
i \
11
I
j
Ii
I
I
government must have this information in order to jus
the
expense to Parliament.
The Prime Minister has currently
Thanks,
Brooke
!:
Ii
II
iI
I
II
I!
II
Brooke S. Moppert
Economic Officer
Nassau, The Bahamas
I!
I
Ii

.
*To:* Moppert~ Brooke S; Carol ann albury; C Albury
60f8
9/27/20102: 11 PM

...
009727


recommended hotels
4) General c6st of taxi to and from Airport

while my budget has been slashed this training is considered
and essentail for monitoring the impact of the BP oil Spill
Regards
. !
I
carol ann albury

I
80fS

9/27/20102:11 PM
009728
oil budget tool
Subject: oil budget tool

From: Dean Dale
@genwest.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:15:32 -0700
Hi Mark,
(Comprehensive
I went to the USGS site for the oil budget tool, but couldn't find it. I did searches in
Science Catalog) and Science Base - Catalog directories for "oil budget tool" with' no hits. Can you provide me
with more direction please? Thanks.
d
esc
From: Mark Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
To: John Murphy [mailto:

@genwest.com], Dean Dale [mailto:
Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:12:09 -0700
Subject: Re: FW: Skimmer Strike Team
genwest.com]
I am not sure exactly what this entails but would like to check your availability? More info to follow. Looks
like it all take place in the Gulf.
Mark
Moore, David M. wrote:
I Mark,
!
t Not
looking for an SSC. Just someone who has basic skimmer knowledge
who is not
to ask questions and get dirty. Folks will
1 initially be mining data at the UAC and then will start making field
I trips to skimmer deployment sites to get information on measurement
! capabilities. Also some trips offshore may be required.
I and
David

I Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:18 PM
j To: Moore, David M
. Subject: Re: FW: Skimmer Strike Team
David,
Good to see you still connected. I have a dispersant webinar Tuesday

that will tie me up most of the day. Let's talk later in the week. Can
you give me some background on what would be needed - that will help
identify the right person. The problem we may run into is that it most
probably would be one of our SSCs who are completely booked. We shall
figure something out.
Mark
lof3
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009729
oil budget tool
Mark,
Heard you are back. Jason said NOAA was on board with a Strike Team
concept of 3 persons (one each from BOEM, NOAH, and USCG) to address
the
skimmer efficiency issue.
Do you have someone in NOAA in mind for
this
effort?
Will talk tomorrow with Amy as well to get this started.
David
.~
j
!
-----Original Message----I From: Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil [mailto:Amy.McElroy@uscg.milJ

Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2: 32 PM
i To: Moore, David M.i rolfe.jason@noaa.gov
Subject: RE: Skimmer Strike Team
Good Afternoon,
II I
did speak with MR. Pond while he was in NOLA. He was not able to
"
.!
talk
to the FOSC about it due to time constraints. We have not id'd a CG

member to be on the team, yet either. I will bring this up tomorrow on
I
" Ii
II
I
conf call and let you know the outcome.
Amy
-----Original Message----From:" prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov
[mailto:prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov] On Behalf Of Moore, David
M.
200
9/27/20102:11 PM
009730
oil budget tool
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 8:40 AM

To: McElroy, Amy LT; rolfe.jason@noaa.qov
Subject: Skimmer Strike Team
Amy - Were you able to speak with Bob Pond while he was at the UAC and
did he broach this topic with the FOSC? Do we have their support?
Has
USCG identified a person to serve on the team?

Jason - Can you provide the name of and contact data for the NOAA
I person
!.
I
who will work on the team?

Even if we can't get people on the boats this week, would like them to
start mining whatever data they can from Houma command post where all
reports on skimmer operations are maintained.
Thanks,
David
David M. Moore
Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs
.gov
300
9/27/20102:11 PM
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Budget Tool]]
009731
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Budget Tool]]

From: "Kate. Clark" <Kate. Clark@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11 :17:03 -0400
CC: Tony Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>
Hi Mark Thanks for letting us know about this. We would like access for the following
folks:
Troy Baker Rob Ricker
Tom Brosnan
Lisa DiPinto
Dan Hahn
Kevin Kirsch Branden Bray
Ian Zelo
Kate Clark
Tom Moore (RC) Tony Penn
Robert Haddad
Let me know if you need additional information.
Thank you,
Kate

Re: [Fwd: Oil Budget Tool]
Date:
Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:15:28 -0400
From:
Tony Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.qov>
To:
Kate.Clark <Kate.Clark@noaa.gov>
References:
<4C3FCACF.I060802@noaa.gov> <4C404D8C.I0402@noaa.gov>
Hi Kate. Sounds good.

Please pass along all of these names - including Bob and
me
to Mark. Thanks for looking into this.
Tony
Kate.Clark wrote:
- This is essentially an oil mass balance under both high flow and low flow
I estimates. It seems that it would be useful/informative for folks working
operations, NRDA lead, and science to have access. I recommend:
Baker, Ricker, Brosnan, DiPinto, D. Hahn, Kirsch, Bray, Zelo, Clark, and Moore.
i Tony
II
! You and Bob?
II will follow up with Mark.
! Kate
!
Tony Penn wrote:

! I
1 Hi Kate. Will you take a look at this and see if it's something we should
get our folks access to?
Thanks,
Tony
1of2
9/27/20102:11 PM
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Budget Tool]]
! Subject:
Date:
From:
Ij
To:
009732
Original Message -------Oil Budget Tool

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:44:57 -0400
Tony Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>, Robert Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Tony,
USGS in creating. Do you have folks that want/need access?
I assisted
ij'
https://my.usgs.gov/oilBudget
I mark.w.miller@noaa.gov
I
!I
Mark
I\
'~ ~
Kate Clark, Regional Resource Coordinator

Assessment and Restoration Division
NOAA Headquarters Detail (7/10-6/11)

1305 East-West Highway RM 10110, SSMC4
(Office) 301-713-3038 x105
(Fax)
301-713-4387
=======================
Permanent Duty Station:

28 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
2of2
9/27120102:11 PM
009733
Re: oil budgettool

From: IIMark.W.Millerll <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:27:11 -0400
To: Dean Dale
@genwest.com>
Can you check your noaa.gov email? You should have an account with PW.
Mark
Dean Dale wrote:
I Hi Mark,
i I went to the USGS site for the oil budget tool, but couldn't find it.
I did searches in CSC (Comprehensive

Can you
! Science Catalog) and Science Base - Catalog directories for "oil budget tool" with no hits.
1 provide me with more direction please? Thanks.
ld
I
ii
~

To: John Murphy [mailto
Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:12:09 -0700
@genwest.com]
Dean,
I am not sure exactly what this entails but would like to check your availability? More info to follow.
Looks like it all take place in the Gulf.
Mark
!
t Mark,
I Not
looking for an sse. Just someone who has basic skimmer knowledge
and who is not afraid to ask questions and get dirty. Folks will
I
I!
initially be mining data at the'UAC and then will start making field
trips to skimmer deployment sites to get information on measurement
capabilities. Also some trips offshore may be required.
I David
I To: Moore, David M.
i David,
that will tie me up most of the day. Let's talk later in the week. Can
you give me some background on what would be needed - that will help
identify the right person. The problem we may run into is that it most
probably would be one of our SSCs who are completely booked. We shall
lof3
I!
II
!
II
!
I
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
009734
Re: oil budget tool
I Mark
~
~
Mark,
Heard you are back. Jason said NOAA was on board with a Strike Team
concept of 3 persons (one each from BOEM, NOAH, and USCG) to address
the
Do you have someone in NOAA in mind for
this
effort?
David
-----Original Message----From: Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil [mailto:Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil]
To: Moore, David M.; rolfe.jason@noaa.gov
Good Afternoon,
I did speak with MR. Pond while he was in NOLA. He was not able to
talk
to the FOSC about it due to time constraints. We have not id'd a CG

member to be on the team, yet either. I will bring this up tomorrow
o~

Amy
-----Origina1 Message----From: prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov
'
[mailto:prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov] On Behalf Of Moore, David!
20f3
9/27/20102:11 PM
009735
Re: oil budget tool
M.

To: McElroy, Amy LT; rolfe.jason@noaa.gov
II
. Amy - Were you able to speak with Bob Pond while he was at the UAC and
did he broach this topic with the FOSC? Do we have their support?
II
Ii
Has
I
I'.
!I
;
Ii i
person

Even if we can't
people on the boats this week, would like them to
start mining whatever data they can from Houma command post where all
Thanks,
David
David M. Moore
david.moore@mms.gov
300
9/27/2010 2: 11 PM
009736
Re: oil budget tool

From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov.>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:55:42 -0400
To: Dean Dale <
@genwest.com>
Try https:/lmy.usgs.gov/oilBudget
Dean Dale wrote:
! Mark,
1 I was able to login with my NOAA email and USGS password to get on the site. I just can't find the oil
i budget tool.
Id
,J
~
From: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

To: Dean Dale [mailto:
@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 201009:27:11 -0700
Mark
Dean Dale wrote:
i Hi Mark,
! I went to the USGS site for the oil budget tool, but couldn't find it.
i
I did searches in CSC

(Comprehensive Science catalog) and Science Base - catalog directories for "oil budget tool"
with no hits. can you provide me with more direction please? Thanks.
!d
I
II
'f
@genwest.com]
I am not sure exactly what this entails but would like to check your availability? More info to
follow. Looks like it all take place in the Gulf.
Mark
II
Dean,
!I
lof4

To: John Murphy [mailto:
@genwest.com], Dean Dale [mailto
Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:12:09 -0700
I!
Moorel David M. wrote:
II
Mark,
Not looking for an SSC.
Just someone who has basic skimmer knowledge
and who is not afraid to ask questions and get dirty.
Folks will
I
initially be mining data at the UAC and then will start making field
trips to skimmer deployment sites to get information on measurement;
capabilities. Also some trips offshore may be r e q u i r e d . j
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009737
Re: oil budget tool
David
To: Moore, David M.
David,
!I
I
j

that will tie me up most of the day. Let's talk later in the week. Ca~
you give me some background on what would be needed - that will help !
identify the right person. The problem we may run into is that it m~s~
probably would be one of our SSCs who are completely booked. We shall t
I
I
Mark
.1
II,
I
I
Mark,
.
,I
.
.
Heard you are back. Jason said NOAA was on board with a Strike 'Tea~
concept of 3 persons (one each from BOEM, NOAH, and USCG) to addr~s4
I
I
the
Do you have someone in NOAA in mind
I
\
this
I
!
effort?
David
-----Original Message----From: Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil [mailto:Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil)
To: Moore, David M.i rolfe.jason@noaa.gov
Good Afternoon,
I
did speak with MR. Pond while he was in NOLA. He was not able
talk
2of4
9/27/20102:11 PM
009738
Re: oil budget tool
, l I
to the FOSC about it due to time constraints. We have not id'd ~ CG
member to be on the team, yet either. I will bring this up tomorrdw 1ol
1
II
,J i
j
I
I
II
I i
Amy
-----Original Message----From: prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov
[mailto:prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov] On Behalf Of Moore,
.I1
i
I
I
,
'
Amy - Were you able to speak with Bob Pond while he was at the VAC ~nd
did he broach this topic with the FOSC? Do we have their support? j[ !r
J
I
I
!i
!
II

Even if we can't get people on the boats this week, would like them td
start mining whatever data they can from Houma command post whereia~l
...
j
Thanks,
David
,I
II
I
David M. Moore
30f4
9/27/2010 2:11 PM
009739
Re: oil budget tool
703-787-1637
david.moore@mms.gov
4of4
9/27/20102:11 PM
009740
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Budget Tool]]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Budget Tool]]

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:58:43 -0400
To: "Kate.Clark" <Kate.Clark@noaa.gov>
Could you put these names on the attached spreadsheet?
Mark
Kate.Clark wrote:
Hi Mark Thanks for letting us know about this. We would like access for the following folks:
Troy Baker Rob Ricker
Tom Brosnan
Lisa DiPinto
Dan Hahn
Ian Zelo
Kate Clark
Tom Moore (RC) Tony Penn
Robert Haddad
Let me know if you need additional information.
Thank you,
Kate

Re: [Fwd: Oil Budget Tool]
Date:
Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:15:28 -0400
From:
Tony Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>
To:
References:
<4C3FCACF.I060802@noaa.gov> <4C404D8C.I0402@noaa.gov>
Hi Kate.
to Mark.
Sounds good. Please pass along all of these names - including Bob and me Thanks for looking into this.
Tony
Kate. Clark wrote:
'
~
j!
j Tony - This is essentially an oil mass balance under both high flow and low flow
I estimates.
It seems that it would be useful/informative for folks working operations,

NRDA lead, and science to have access: I recommend:
,',l
.1
You and Bob?

I will follow up with Mark.
Kate
Tony Penn wrote:
Hi Kate. Will you take a look at this and see if it's something we should get our
folks access to?
Thanks,
Tony
Origina~
lof2
Message
~-------
9/27/20102:11 PM
009741
Subject:
Oil Budget Tool
Date:
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:44:57 -0400
From:
To:
Tony, .
assisted USGS in creating. Do you have folks that want/need access?
https:!!my.usgs.gov!oilBudget
mark.w.miller@noaa.gov
Mark
.
Content-Type:
application/vnd.openxmlformatsNOAA Access to 011 Budget Tool.xlsx
20f2
9/27/20102: 11 PM
009742

First Name
Troy
Last Name
Baker
Email
troy.baker
Category
Reader
009743
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Oil Budget Tool]]

From: "Kate. Clark" <Kate.Clark@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul2010 13:10:33 -0400
Certainly. Here you go.
[ Could you put these names on the attached spreadsheet?
Mark
Kate.Clark wrote:
i Hi Mark -
I Thanks
for letting us know about this. We would like access for the following folks:
! Troy
Baker Rob Ricker

. Tom Brosnan
! Lisa DiPinto
f Dan Hahn
! Ian Zelo
t Kate Clark
Torn Moore (RC) Tony Penn
! Robert Haddad
know if you need additional information.

you,
Original Message -------Re: [Fwd: Oil Budget Tool]

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:15:28 -0400
Tony Penn <Tonv.Penn@noaa.gov>
References:
<4C3FCACF.I060802@noaa.gov> <4C404DBC.I0402@noaa.gov>
Hi Kate. Sounds good. Please pass along all of these names - including Bob and me - to Mark.
for looking into this.
wrote:
Tony - This is essentially an oil mass balance under both high flow and low flow estimates. It
'seems that it would be useful/informative for folks working operations, NRDA lead, and science
. to have access. I recommend:
You and Bob?
. I
will follow up with Mark.
Tony Penn wrote:

. Hi Kate. Will you take a look at this and see if it's something we should get our folks
, access to?
Thanks,
Tony
Original Message -------Oil Budget Tool
Subject:
Date:
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:44:57 -0400
Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.MiI1er@noaa.gov>
From:
To:
lof2
9/27/20102:11 PM
009745

First Name
Troy
Rob
Tom
Lisa
Dan
Kevin
Brendan
Ian
Kate
Tom
Tony
Robert
Last Name
Baker
Ricker
Brosnan
DiPinto
Hahn
Kirsch
Bray
Zelo
Clark
Moore
Penn
Haddad
Email
Category
troy.baker
Reader
rob.ricker
tom.brosnan
lisa.dipinto
daniel.hahn
kevin.kirsch
brendan. bray
ian.zelo
kate.clark
tom.moore
tony.penn
robert. haddad
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]]
009746
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool updated)]

From: "Mark.WMilier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri. 16 Jul 2010 13:48:30 -0400
To: Jerry Galt
@genwes!.com>, Chris Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>. Glen Watabayashi <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>
---- Original Message ----Subject:Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]
Date:Thu. 15 Jul 2010 16:36:15 -0400
From:Mark.WMiller <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>
To:Jordan Stout <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>
References:<29EA11 D8111A544E89CCOC77FD30BBAF0265787977@Vmail51.noaa.nems>
I am not sure if it is on RL but it is in the documentation on the web tool. If you can't wait for your account feel free to use mine https:llmy.usgs.gov/oiIBudget
d91-%vrW
Mark
Jordan Stout wrote:
. Cool. It seemed that Sky Bristofs e-mail mentioned a dOCt.ment that Bill Lehr had worked on. Is that on RL?
Jordan.
JOrdanStolJ.
Scient~ic
Scpport Coordinator
NOM Emergency Response Division

Coast Guard Island. Bldg
so.7
Alameda. CA 94501-5000
240m\.( NOM spill mtline: (206)526-4911
From: Mark.W.Milier <Mark.W.Millernoaa.gov>

To: Jordan.Stout@!ooaa.goy <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>
Sent. Thu lullS 15:59:08 2010

Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]
Jordan.
It is a web based tool with a login and PW. I am requesting accounts for all the SSCs.
Mark
Jordan Stout wrote:
Is the Mass Balance document available? If not me. can RDML Kom see it? I didn't see it attached.
Jordan.
Mark. WMilier wrote:
----- Original Message - - Subject:Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated

Date:Thu. 15 Jul 2010 10:48:28 -0700
From:Billlehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To:Bill.lehr@noaa.gov
To:O'Brien. Sean CDR <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>
CC:Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>. "Hammon, Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Marn.WMiller@noaa.gov>
References:<E91AB69D-0A58-459B-943E-5A167EB173A8@usgs.gov> <430EF5E6C11904498224A1 B849D8C81404A6AEB3@emoexmb-m-103.main.ads.usCQ.mil> <94D92F9D-819E-4E83-A7C7-52595822F280@usgs.gov>
. Sean,
Tne sub-surface natural dispersion is calculated by applying the
. Oe!vlgne method (commonly used for surface natural dispersion) to the
plume where members of the FRTG Plume team estimated tne energy
dissipation rate of the flow. lie don't have any good numbers on
observations [reduction in surface slick above the source) and some
very limited water sampling. Therefore we used the ITopr 20;1 ratio for
lof2
9/27/20102:12 PM
009747
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]]

For surface oil t we assumed no natural dispers~on since the oil rapidly
emulsifies. A SINTEF
indicated that the emulsions are weakly
dispersable with the
of chemical dispersants so we used a
reduced ratio for the surface oil that is sprayed~ or, equivalently,
Bill Lenr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
On 7/15/10 9:49 AM,
The best answer to
Br istol wrote:
comes from the Mass Balance document Bill Lenr and the plume team put together. You'll find a link
> An estimation of a 20:1 dosage of chemical dispersant is used for successful chemical dispersion. This is multiplied by an
>
> <. (11<<<----<.111<<<----<.111<<<

Sky Bristol
>
> <. ( 1
">
1<<<----<. 111<<<
On Jul lOt 2010, at 10:15"t..M, O'Brien, Sean CDR wrote:
Sky:
Command
(202)
372-1710
Message----[mai 1 to: sbristol@'.Jsas. gov]

2010 7:07 PM
From:
Sent:
Daniel LCDI'.
New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and a cumulative total shown in the executive
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get from Jaqui Michel and that particular
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the application. In partlcular, let us know if the new Inland
::
Thank you.
<. I <<<~--~<. I ( I<<<~---<. ( ( 1<<<
>
Jordan Stout
Scient i f ic Support Coordinator
coast Guard Island, Bldg 50-7

Alameda, CA
94501-5000
24-hour NOAA spill hotline: 12061526-4911
2of2
9/27/20102:12 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]]
009748
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]]
From: "Glen (Bushy) Watabayashi" <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul2010 11:15:46 -0700
CC: Jerry Galt
@genwest.com>, Chris Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>
... I tried your user name and password and it didn't work and now it's
locked out! ! !
-------- Original Message -------Re: (Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]
Subject:
Thu, 15 Jul 201016:36:15 -0400
i Date:
! From:
Jordan Stout <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>
! To:
I References:
<29EAI1D8111A544E89CCOC77FD30B8AF0265787977@VmaiI5l.noaa.nems>
1
;
i
I
I am not sure if it is on RL but it is in the documentation on the web tool. If

can't wait for your account feel free to use mine
1 you
I
I https:!!my.usqs.gov!oilBudget
!mark.w.miller@noaa.gov
i
~
i
i
Mark
Jordan Stout wrote:
It seemed that Sky Bristol's e-mail mentioned a document that Bill Lehr
had worked on. Is that on RL?
! Cool.
!i Jordan .
.1
f!
, !
Ii -J
Jordan Stout
, Alameda, CA 94501-5000
II
Ii
, I
24-hour NOAA spill hotline: (206)526-4911
II -----------------------------------------------------------------------*From*: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

I *To*: Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>
*Sent*: Thu Jul 15 15:59:08 2010

*Subjeot*: Re: (Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]
Jordan,
lof4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009749
tf It
It
IMark
is a web based tool with a login and PW. I am requesting accounts for all
the SSCs.
Jordan Stout wrote:

Is the Mass Balance document available?
didn't see it attached.
I.
I'
If not me, can RDML Korn see it? I
I!
.., !I
I!I ~
Jordan.
Ii
Ii
I!
-------- Original Message -------ect:

Date:
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:48:28 -0700
From:
Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.qov>
. Reply-To:
Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov
.To:
O'Brien, Sean CDR <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>
iCC:
Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.qOv>, "Hammon, Steve"
i <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
i
{References:
<E91AB69D-OA5S-459B-943E-5AI67EB173AS@usgs.gov>
!
<430EF5E6C11904498224AIB849D8C81404A6AEB3@emo-exmb-m103.main.ads.uscg.mil> <94D92F9D-819E-4E83-A7C7-52595822F28D@usgs.gov>
I
I
!
I,
I
!
Sean,
I
!
i
I!
\
i;
d
,; ,l
r:
The sub-surface natural dispersion is calculated by applying the Delvigne

method (commonly used for surface natural dispersion) to the plume where
members of the FRTG Plume team estimated the energy dissipation rate of
the flow. We don't have any good numbers on dispersion due to the addition
of chemical dispersants other the surface observations (reduction in
surface slick above the source) and some very limited water sampling.
Therefore we used the ITOPF 20:1 ratio for successful dispersant
applications.
dispersable with the addition of chemical dispersants so we used a reduced
ratio for the surface oil that is sprayed. or, equivalently, mUltiplying
. by an effectiveness factor less than 1.
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
> The best answer to this comes from the Mass Balance document Bill Lehr
and the plume team put together. You'll find a link to download this
document if you click on the About link in the application. The dynamics
of dispersed oil, the dispersant effectiveness fractions used and the
reasoning behind them, and the overall algorithm are discussed on pages
6-S. Some of the background information can get a bit complex, so I'll
offer a simple interpretation that might work. I would definitely
encourage you to consult with Mark Miller or Bill Lehr from NOAA to get
further clarification.
>
20f4
9/27/20102:12 PM
..! I
, !
> An estimation of a 20:1 dosage of chemical dispersant is'used for

successful chemical dispersion. This is multiplied by an effectiveness
fraction (surface or subsurface) based on the expert opinion of the group
that Bill consulted in the development of the overall formula and then
multiplied by the amount of dispersant used (surface or subsurface) to
produce a figure in barrels of oil dispersed (to droplets smaller than 100
micron). The NIST group put together a method of statistically quantifying
and analyzing the uncertainty introduced through the range of
effectiveness factors to provide probable values of dispersed oil for both
the high and low flow estimates. The Mass Balance document summarizes the
different factors that go into determining just how effective dispersants
should be based on the best available knowledge of how they operate.
II!I
q
t j
1j
I!
\!
~
!,[ II,
>
> <. (( ----<. (( ----<. ((

>
Sky Bristol
>
sbristol@usgs.gov
>
Office: 303-202-4181
>
I
i ~
I~
1
>
What is your algorithm for sub-sea and surface dispersants? - just want
I
I
>
>
Sky:
lj
to make sure I have it correct.
Sean 0'
CDR
II
III
.1,
!! I
l!
! 1
(I
!, I'
I
I
II
> <. (( (<----<. (( (<----<. (( (<
11
!
!
009750
j
J
c)
i! '
!
11
II
!'
!I
lj
1,
1!
('

Cc: McElroy, Amy LTi Mark Miller - NOAA
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for

input and a cumulative total shown in the executive summary for reporting.
I added a note about this variable that comes up in the report. If you all
ever want to change any of the notes,
let us know and we'll walk
you through how to do that on your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are
currently in a group that allows you to edit the various annotations
available through the application and in the reports.
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we

can get from Jaqui Michel and that particular group. We'll rely on
anything additional in the way of inland recovery data availability to
,Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the application.

In particular, let us know if the new Inland Recovery report component
30f4
9/27/2010 2: 12 PM
009751
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated])
looks okay.
Thank you .
<. (( (<----<. (( (<----<. (( (<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
----<. (( ----<. (( (<

>
Jordan Stout
. NOAA Emergency Response Division
. Coast Guard Island r Bldg 50-7
Alameda r CA 94501-5000
24-hour NOAA spill hotline:
40f4
(206)526-4911
9/27/20102:12 PM
009752
Re: oil budgettooi
From: Dean Dale <
@genwest.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:39:37 -0700
Thanks Mark, this URL worked. I note that there is NO mechanical recovery listed until day 39!

@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 201009:55:42 0700
Try https:llmy.usgs.gov/oiIBudget
Dean Dale wrote:
! Mark,
! I was able to login with my NOAA email and USGS password to get on the site. I just can't find the oil
I!d
budget tool.
11
1

@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 201009:27:11 -0700
Mark
I
I
I
I
I
II
lof4
Dean,
Mark
9/27/20102:12 PM
009753
Re: oil budget tool

Mark,
Not looking for an SSC. Just someone who has basic skimmer knowleag
and who is not afraid to ask questions and get dirty. Folks will \
initially be mining data at the UAC and then will start making
I
!
!\
II
David
To: Moore, David M.
I
I
David,
Good to see you still connected. I have a dispersant webinar TUesday! j

that will tie me up most of the day. Let's talk later in the week.
nl
you give me some background on what would be needed - that will help! !
identify the right person. The problem we may run into is that it mO$t!
probably would be one of our 88Cs who are completely booked. We shalf !
I'
ct
Mark
I
I
Mark,
Heard you are back. Jason said NOAA was on board with a 8trike Term!
concept of 3 persons (one each from BOEM, NOAH, and USCG) to addrersl
. , i
I, iI
I I.
the
I
I
I
I
II
effort?
Do you have someone in NOAA in mind1
Will talk tomorrow with Amy as well to get this
David
-----Original Message----From: Amy.McElroy@uscc.mil [mailto:Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil]
2of4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009754
Re: oil budget tool

Good Afternoon,
I did
,
with MR. Pond while he was in NOLA. He was not able
talk
to the FOSC about it due to time constraints. We have not id'dl a C

member to be on the team, yet either. I will bring this up tom~rro

Amy
Message----From: prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov
[mailto:prvs,=S0258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov) On Behalf Of
Moore~
M.

To: McElroy, Amy LTi rolfe.jason@noaa.qov
Amy - Were you able to speak with Bob Pond while he was at the UAC
did he broach this topic with the FOSC? Do we have their supP?rF?
Has

person

.1
Even if we can't get people on the boats this week, would like! the
30f4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009755
Re: oil budget tool
start m~n~ng whatever data they can from Houma command post where
tl
Thanks,
David
David M. Moore
Minerals-Management Service
703-787 1637
davld.moore@mms.gov
4of4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009756
Re: oil budget tool

From: "Mark.W.Miller'" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:32:58 -0400
To: Dean Dale
@genwest.com>
Thats weird!
Dean Dale wrote:
I Thanks Mark, this URL worked.

Id
I note that there is NO mechanical recovery listed until day 39!
From: IVlark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

@genwest.com]
To: Dean Dale [mailto:d
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:55:42 -0700
Try https:llmy.usgs.gov/oilBudget
Dean Dale wrote:
I, IMark,
was able to login with my NOAA email and USGS password to get on the site. I just can't find the
I! oil budget tool.
jd
II
From: Mark.W.tvliller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.qov]

@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 201009:27:11 -0700
can you check your noaa.gov email? You should have an account with PW.
Mark
Dean Dale wrote:
Hi Mark,
I went to the USGS site for the oil budget tool, but couldn't find it. I did searches in esc
(Comprehensive Science catalog) and Science Base - catalog directories for "oil budget
tool" with no hits. Can you provide me with more direction please? Thanks.
d

To: John Murphy [mailto:j
Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:12:09 -0700
Subject: Re: FVI/: Skimmer Strike Team
Dean,
@genwest.com]
I am not sure exactly what this entails but would like to check your availability? More info
to follow. Looks like it all take place in the Gulf.
lof4
'
'
9/27/2010 2:12 PM
009757
Re: oil budget tool

Mark,
Not looking for an SSC. Just someone who has basic skimmer knowledg
and who is not afraid to ask questions and get dirty. Folks will i
initially be mining data at the UAC and then will start making fieldl
capabilities. Also ~ome trips offshore may be required.
I
David
-----Original Message----From: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.govj

To: Moore, David M.
David,
<
Good to see you still connected. I have a dispersant webinar TUeSdayl

that will tie me up most of the day. Let's talk later in the week. C?n
you give me some background on what would be needed - that will help!
identify the right person. The problem we may run into is that it moet
probably would be one of our SSCs who are completely booked. We shal}
t
Mark
Heard you are back. Jason said NOAA was on board with a
concept of 3 persons (one each from BOEM, NOAH, and USCG)
the
Do you have someone in NOAA in
this
effort?
David
-----Original Message----From: Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil [mailto:Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil]
20f4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009758
Re: oil budget too)

Subj ect: RE: Skimmer Strike Tea.m
II
Good Afternoon,
I did speak with MR. Pond while he was in NOLA. He was not able tol
!
\
;
I
to the FOSC about it due to time constraints. We have not
member to be on the team, yet either. I will bring this up
-t

Amy
[mailto:prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov] On Behalf Of Moore"

To: McElroy, Amy LT; rolfe.jason@noaa.qov
c:
i
I
!
Amy - Were you able to speak with Bob Pond while he was at the UAC a-.pd
did he broach this topic with the FOSC? Do we have their supporf?1
! I
Jason - Can you provide the name of and contact
1
I

Even if we can't get people on the boats this week, would
30f4
~o
9/27/2010 2: 12 PM
009759
Re: oil budget tool
start mining whatever data they can from Houma command post
Thanks,
li
wh~r
David
David M. Moore
.gov
40f4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009760
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:38:43 -0400
To: "Glen (Bushy) Watabayashi" <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>
cc: Jerry Galt
@genwest.com>, Chris Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>
It works now. Remember just like ResponseLink you have to type the entire email
address (including the @noaa.gov).
Mark
Glen (Bushy) Watabayashi wrote:
Arrrg ... I tried your user name and password and it didn't work and now it's
locked out! ! !
Mark.W.Miller wrote:.

Date:
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:36:15 -0400
From:
To:
References:
<29EAIID8111A544E89CCOC77FD30B8AF0265787977@Vmai151.noaa.nems>
I am not sure if it is on RL but it is in the documentation on the web tool.

If you can't wait for your account feel free to use mine https:llmy.usgs.gov/oilBudget
Mark
Jordan Stout wrote:
Cool. It seemed that Sky Bristol's e-mail mentioned a document that Bill
Lehr had worked on. Is that on RL?
Jordan.

Jordan Stout
0:
lof4
(206) 526-4911
9/27/2010 2:12 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated)]
009761
*From*: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

*To*: Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>
*Sent*: Thu Jul 15 15:59:08 2010
*Subject*: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool
updated]
I; Jordan,
if
!
It is a web based tool with a login and PW. I am requesting accounts for all
the SSCs.
!!
I Mark
J
! Jordan Stout wrote:
! .
Is the Mass Balance document available?

I didn't see it attached.
If not me, can RDML Korn see it?
Jordan.
!.
j
-------- Original Message -------. Subject:

Date:
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:48:28 -0700
From:
Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To:
Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov
To:
CC:
Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, "Hammon, Steve"
<sehammon@usas.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
References:
<E91AB69D-OA58-459B-943E-5A167EB173A8@usgs.gov>
<430EF5E6CI1904498224AIB849D8C81404A6AEB3@emo-exmb-m103.main.ads.uscg.mil> <94D92F9D-819E-4E83-A7C7-52595822F28D@usgs.gov>
!
I
I
Ii
I
I.
Sean,
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
> The best answer to this comes from the Mass Balance document Bill Lehr
and the plume team put together. You'll find a link to download this
document if you click on the About link in the application. The dynamics
of dispersed oil, the dispersant effectiveness fractions used and the
2of4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009762
reasoning behind them, and the overall algorithm are discussed on pages
6-8. Some of the background information can get a bit complex, so I'll
offer a simple interpretation that might work. I would definitely
encourage you to consult with Mark Miller or Bill Lehr from NOAA to get
further clarification.
>
> An estimation 'of a 20:1 dosage of chemical dispersant is used for
successful chemical dispersion. This is multiplied by an effectiveness
fraction (surface or subsurface) based on the expert opinion of the
group that Bill consulted in the development of the overall formula and
then multiplied by the amount of dispersant used (surface or subsurface)
to produce a figure in barrels of oil dispersed (to droplets smaller
than 100 micron). The NIST group put together a method of statistically
quantifying and analyzing the uncertainty introduced through the range
of effectiveness factors to provide probable values of dispersed oil for
both the high and low flow estimates. The Mass Balance document
summarizes the different factors that go into determining just how
effective dispersants should be based on the best available knowledge of
how they operate.
II
j
I
>
> <. ( ( (<----<. ( ( ----<. ( (
>
Sky Bristol
>
sbristol@usgs.gov
>
> <. (( (<----<. (( ----<. ((

>
>
>
Sky:
. 1
!
~
-!
: !
!
I
-I
,!
~
!
I
Ij
I
I
What is your algorithm for sub-sea and surface dispersants? - just

want to make sure I have it correct.
I;
I
Sean O'Brien, CDR

(c)
I:
II ,',',
ii','
I,".
i ;
i :
I
I
30f4
:
'
-----Original Message---- From: sbristol@usgs.gov [mailto:sbristol@usgs.govl

- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for

input and a cumulative total shown in the executive summary for
reporting. I added a note about this variable that comes up in the
report. If you all ever want to change any of the notes, please let us
know and we'll walk you through how to do that on your end. CDR O'Brien
and LT McElroy are currently in a group that allows you to edit the
various annotations available through the application and in the
reports.
9/27/20lO 2: 12 PM
009763
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we

can get from Jaqui Michel and that particular group. We'll rely on
anything additional in the way of inland recovery data availabil
to
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the application.

In particular, let us know if the new Inland Recovery report component
looks okay.
Thank you.
<. ((
--~-<.
(( ----<. ((
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<. ( ((<----<. (( ----<. ((

>
II
!
I
,I
IIII
I!
Jordan Stout
. Alameda, CA 94501-5000
40f4
(206) 526-4911
9/27/20102:12 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool updated]]
009764
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:04:22 -0700
I did .. I even copied and pasted ...
Galt and Barker got on and checked it out but didn't find it all that useful. What we need is
to estimate how much oil is left on the water
today and Chris says that's not what's in the report. I'm looking for Lehr but he's nowhere
to be found. Chris is gonna play with some
numbers and see how much of a difference it makes.
Just had a discussion with Lehman and Csulak over today's trajectories. The consensus
was that we will model the source as being
shut in for the next 72 hours. BP had requested two sets, one with the source secure and
one with the source leaking oil as before.
We talked our way out of doing two sets. The main difference between the two scenarios at
this point is that there will be
more or less oil near the source. The foot print won't change significantly over 72 hours.
I asked for the prediction on the source and they didn't have one. But I assured them that
there will be yet another trajectory
tomorrow and if need be, we can turn on the source again. The oil is so far offshore that it
won't a difference in landfall
predictions at this point.

lit works now. Remember just like ResponseLink you have to type the entire email
I address (including the @noaa.gov).
II Mark,
IGlen (Bushy) Watabayashi wrote:

'I'
'
Arrrg ... I tried your user name and password and it didn't work and now it's
locked out!!!

Date:
Thu, 15 Jul2010 16:36:15 -0400
lof6
9/27/20102: 12 PM
009765
From:
To:
References:
.
<29EA11 D8111A544E89CCOC77FD30B8AF0265787977@Vmail51.noaa.nems>
I am not sure if it is on RL but it is in the documentation on the web tool. If

you can't wait for your account feel free to use mine https:llmy.usgs.gov/oilBudget
mark.w. miller@noaa.gov
Mark
Jordan Stout wrote:
Cool. It seemed that Sky Bristol's e-mail mentioned a document that
Bill Lehr had worked on. Is that on RL?
Jordan.
. (Sent from my Blackberry)

. Jordan Stout
I.
i
I
I
Ii
2of6
*From*: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

*To*: Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov <Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov>
*Sent*: Thu Jul 15 15:59:082010
*Subject*: Re: [Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool - updated]
"Jordan,
It is a web based tool with a login and PW. I am requesting accounts
for all the SSCs.
9/27/20102: 12 PM
009766
Mark
Jordan Stout wrote:
Is the Mass Balance document available? If not me, can RDML
Korn see it? I didn't see it attached.
Jordan.

Date:
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:48:28 -0700
From:
Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To:
BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov
To:
CC:
Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, "Hammon, Steve"
<sehammon@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller
References:
<E91AB69D-OA58-459B943E-5A167EB 173A8@usgs.gov>
<430EF5E6C11904498224A1 B849D8C81404A6AEB3@emoexmb-m-103.main.ads.uscg.mil> <94D92F9D-819E-4E83A7C7 -52595822F28D@usgs.gov>
Sean,
The sub-surface natural dispersion is calculated by
applying the Delvigne method (commonly used for surface
natural dispersion) to the plume where members of the
FRTG Plume team estimated the energy dissipation rate of
the I~ow. We don't have any good numbers on dispersion
due to the addition of chemical dispersants other the
surface observations (reduction in surface slick above the
source) and some very limited water sampling. Therefore
we used the ITOPF 20:1 ratio for successful dispersant
applications.
For surface oil, we assumed no natural dispersion since the
oil rapidly emulsifies. A SINTEF study indicated that the
emulsions are weakly dispersable with the addition of
chemical dispersants so we used a reduced ratio for the
surface oil that is sprayed. or, equivalently, multiplying by
an effectiveness factor less than 1.
30f6
9/27/20102: 12 PM
009767
I I
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
On 7/15/109:49 AM, Sky Bristol wrote:
> The best answer to this comes from the Mass Balance
document Bill Lehr and the plume team put together. You'll
find a link to download this document if you click on the
About link in the application. The dynamics of dispersed oil,
the dispersant effectiveness fractions used and the
reasoning behind them, and the overall algorithm are
discussed on pages 6-8. Some of the background
information can get a bit complex, so I'll offer a simple
interpretation that might work. I would definitely encourage
you to consult with Mark Miller or Bill Lehr from NOAA to
get further clarification.
>
> An estimation of a 20:1 dosage of chemical dispersant is
used for successful chemical dispersion. This is multiplied
by an effectiveness fraction (surface or subsurface) based
on the expert opinion of the group that Bill consulted in the
development of the overall formula and then multiplied by
the amount of dispersant used (surface or subsurface) to
produce a figure in barrels of oil dispersed (to droplets
smaller than 100 micron). The NIST group put together a
method of statistically quantifying and analyzing the
uncertainty introduced through the range of effectiveness
factors to provide probable values of dispersed oil for both
the high and low flow estimates. The Mass Balance
document summarizes the different factors that go into
determining just how effective dispersants should be based
on the best available knowledge of how they operate.
>
>
>
Sky Bristol
>
sbristol@usgs.gov
>
<.----<.----<.
I
I
I
!
I
I
l.
40f6
<.
--<.{<
>
>
> On Jul15, 2010, at 10:15 AM, O'Brien, Sean CDR wrote:
>
> Sky:
When you have 5 mins; quick question on the tooL ..
What is your algorithm for sub-sea and surface

dispersants? - just want to make sure I have it correct.
II
II
!
9/27/2010 2: 12 PM
I
!!
I
I
!!t
'I
009768
Sean O'Brien, CDR

(202) 372-1710
(716) 574-4650 (c)

To: O'Brien, Sean CDR; Hammon, Steve; Lauer, Daniel
LCDR
You will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out
now with the changes we discussed this afternoon:
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily

. Variables for input and a cumulative total shown in the
executive summary for reporting. I added a note about this
variable that comes up in the report. If you all ever want to
change any of the notes, please let us know and we'll walk
you through how to do that on your end. CDR O'Brien and
LT McElroy are currently ina group that allows you to edit
. the various annotations available through the application
and in the report~.
- Export to Excel feature was added to the Daily

Variables page.
I
i
!
!
!I
II
!
I
I
I
II
II
I!
II
1
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any

additional data we can get from Jaqui Michel and that
particular group. We'll rely on anything additional in the
way of in land recovery data availability to come to us from
LT McElroy or other USCG personnel.
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving
I
I I
iI
the application. In particular, let us know if the new Inland

Recovery report component looks okay.
Thank you.
<.----<.{<----<.{({<
Sky Bristol
I. .
50f6
9/27/2010 2:12 PM
009769
<.----<.----<.
>
Jordan Stout
. Scientific Support Coordinator
. NOAA Emergency Response Division
6of6
9/27/20102:12 PM
New TAP results
009770
Subject: New TAP results

From: Chris Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:42:30 -0700
To: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Glen Watabayashi <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>,
Jerry Galt <Jerry.Galt@noaa.gov>
Enclosed are the Impact Probabilities from the new TAP runs (LC in similar configuration
to now.
For quantity of oil out on the water now, I used two numbers, the High Flow and Low Flow
results from the USGS Oil budget summary site.
It was an instantaneous release,
the trajectory initialization from two days ago.
The "30day" one is the higher estimate, but run out only 30 days. That seems to indicate
that any oil making it to the Florida straits is taking along time to get there -- more
evidence that well weathered, scatter tarballs are all they will see.
I think both of those number are substantial over-estimates of the actual oil still
floating out there -- at least the oil we can see with Satellite imagery and overflights.
But we can point that Official source for the numbers.
This is using the same LOC that we used before -- 8700 bbls/grid box. That's actually a
pretty high cut off.
With the higher Flow number results in a 17% or less probability for south Florida.
The lower flow number results in
9.8% or less probability for south Florida.
So on the previous maps' scale of 1-20% for the lowest -- the Shoreline map won't look
any different.
-Chris

Oceanographer
,Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R
lof4
voice
fax
main reception
9/27/20102: 12 PM
009771
New TAP results
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
so
90
100
ImpactAnalysisLowFlow.png ......... - .......
2of4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009772
New TAP results
10
20
30
40
SO
GO
70
80
90
100
-lmpactAnalysisHighFlow30day.png - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
30f4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009773
New TAP results
20
30
40
SO
60
70
eo
~o
100
Content-Type:
image/png
ImpactAnalysisHighFlow.png Content-Encoding: base64
-1mpaetAnalysisL-owF!ew:png
IContent-Type:
image/png
ImpactAnalysisLowFlow.png I Content-Encoding: base64
ImpactAnalysisHighFlow30day,png
...----'-------'-'-'-----"--'-"----'--'-"-=---.:.-
Content-Type:
imag e/png
ImpactAnalysisHighFlow30day.png Content-Encoding: base64
40f4
9/27/2010 2:12 PM
009774
Fwd: RE: RE: Ocean smface oil thickness studies
Subject: Fwd: RE: RE: Ocean surface oil thickness studies

Date: Fri, 16 Jul2010 15:16:15 -0700
To: Mark W Miller <Mark.W,Miller@noaa.gov>, Robert Pavia <Robert.Pavia@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Chris Barker
<Chris. Barker@noaa.gov>
- - Original Message - - SubjectRE: RE: Ocean surface oillhickness studies

Date:Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:01:48 +0200
From:Per DaHng <Per.Daling@sintef.no>
To:'Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov' <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
CC:lvar Singsaas
@sintef.no>, Tore Aunaas
@sintef.no>, Mark Reed
@sintef.no>
Bill
Thanks for involving me in the mass-balance work.

r have been through your mass-balance version June 24th.
Please find enclosed the two SINT~~ reports:

II Cruise report from the phsysico-characterisatison of surface emulsions and 21the follow-up -Laboratory studies at SINTEF of the dispersibi
Hope these reports from the field and lab can be useful input in your mass-balance / budget estimates. Both reports are un-restricted t means
I am on vacation the coming two weeks but if you have any questions, don't hesitate to take contact. If you want to have the reports in 'Wore
l
Per
Ps.
Would it be an idea to also include Mark into this? His group have been doing daily mass-balance predictions for BP using the OSCAR ModelS}
-----Original Message----From: Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov [mailto:Bill.Lehr@noaa.govl
Sent: 7. juli 2010 14:16

To: Per Daling
Cc: David.
~.com; lvar Singsaas; 'I'ore Aunaas
Subject: Re: RE: Ocean surface oil thickness studies
Per,
We are constructing the equivalent of the ICS 209 form for the US Coast Guard. What I have tried to do is estimate fate and behavior of the c
Sill
.-.
-----..
---~..
--'--'-1
Content-Type:
application/pdf
~A16062 Cruise report v3.pdf C
E
d'
b se64
'
j
..
ontent- nco 109: a
:
Report dispelSibility testing DWH_ fina1.pdf
.. ...
.
Content-Type:
application/pdf
,Report dlsperslblhty testmg OWH fmal.pdf C te t E d '
b e64
on n - nco 109: as
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ._-----_.._ - - - -
ofl
9/27/2010 2: 12 PM
009775
(j SINTEF
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry
P.O.Box:
Address:
Location:
4760 Siuppen
N0-7465 Trondheim,
NORWAY
Bratterkaia 17C.
SINTEF REPORT
TITlE
Cruise report
Assessment of dispersihiUty of DWH oil at different stages of
weathering
4.elg.
Telephone:
Fax:
+47 4000 3730

+47 930 70730
enterprise No.: NO 948 007 029 MVA
AUTHORIS)
Frode Leirvik, Per Dating, Ken Trudel, Brian Pars cal

CLIENT(S)
BP
REPORT NO.
CLASSIFICATION
CLIENTS REF.
SINTEF A16062 Unrestricted
David Fritz
CLASS. THIS PAGE
ISBN
PROJECT NO.
Unrestricted
978-82-14-05004-2 801599
24/1
PR~MANAGER(NAME'~j
ELECTRONIC FILE CODE
aling
Cruise report v3.doc

FILE CODE
INO. OF PAGES/APPENDICES
~
DATE
APPROVED BY (NAME. POSITION. SIGN.)
2010-06-30
Tore Aunaas, Research Manager
IC:~BY:~N.)
~.~
Iv Sipgs s ~
'\J~
~M
in the period from June 2-5 in an area 5 to 20 nm N-NE of the CM 252
our ,three locations with
surface w/o-emulsions of different appearance (varying from dark brown, to brown to a ore intense orange
reddish color) were identified, sampled and characterized for their relevant different physico-chemical properties
and dispersibility (dispersant effectiveness), both on-site immediately after sampling and in a supplementary
follow-up analysis in SINTEF's Oil Spill Dedicated Laboratories:
It is assumed that the various emulsions have weathered differently depending on the amount of time (1-5
days) at sea
44-50wt.%
Evaporative loss:
Slick
thicknesses
(emulsion):
1-4mm
Water
content
in
emulsions:
33%-67%
1250-7200 mPas (at 32C/90F and shear rate lOs'!):

Viscosity:
All emulsions demonstrated good dispersibility (FET test)
Dispersant effectiveness (at 32C):
ASSTAACT
During a cruise
Prelimingrx ~onclusiQnlrecommendations based on the findings from this limited stud)::::

Good Dispersibility: Emulsions with viscosities up to ca. 7000-8000 mPas
Reduced dispersibility (still dispersible): 800()""(:a. 15.000 mPas
Bad dispersibility: > 12.000~t5.000 mPas
As a result, dispersant application is only recommended On weathered emulsions within these viscosity limitations.
The indicated limits assume sufficient energy and dispersant to emulsion dosage.
Further testing on the dispersant dosage required is presently being conducted
A follow-u I) field cruise with "tactical" di.sDersant application from vessel is recommended..
ENGLISH
GROUP 1
Oil Spill
GROUP 2
Dispersants
Me 252 DWH incident
Field testing
SELECTEO BY AUTHOR
NORWEGIAN
009776
~SINTEF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Background ............................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4
SampJing Log........................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Sample Locations ............................................................................................................. 5
3.1.1
Position 1........................................................................................................... 6
3.1.2
Position 2 ........................................................................................................... 7
3.1.3
Position 3 ........................................................................................................... 8
3.1.4
Position 4 ..................................................... :..................................................... 9
Sam piing and Analysis ...................................... ~................................................................. 10
Results ofPhysieal and Chemical Measurements ............................................................. 14

5.1 Main Findings ................................................................................................................ 14
5.2 Detailed Findings ........................................................................................................... 15
5.3 Predicting the Evaporation of Oil versus Time at Sea ................................................... 20
5.4 Predicting the Lifetime at Sea of OiJ Released in Breaking Wave Conditions .............. 21
Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................... 22

6.1 Time Window for the Use ofDispersants ...................................................................... 22
6.2 Dispersant Dosage .......................................................................................................... 22
6.3 Ongoing Follow-Up Studies and Recommendations ..................................................... 23
References
......................................................................................................................... 24
G> SINTEF
009777
3
1 Background
Based on discussions within the "Dispersant Assessment Group" (DAG) and at the DWH
dispersant meeting in Baton Rouge on May 25-26, 2010, a better definition of the actual
"window-aI-opportunity" for tactical dispersant application was called for. This should be based
on a better documentation of the physical and chemical properties (Le. emulsification, viscosity,
density, evaporative loss, etc.) of the weathered emulsions on the sea surface. Documented
properties should be related to the dispersibility (dispersant effectiveness) of the emulsions,
although such documentation requires monitoring beyond the standard SMART monitoring.
An experimental plan was worked out by SINTEF and approved by David Fritz ofBP on June 2,
2010. The plan description included:
Identification of slicks at different stages of weathering by spotter aircraft;
Surface sampling and physical characterization of emulsions from the slicks;
"Tactical" dispersant application strategies from vessel on the identified slicks (including:
controlled dispersant to emulsion ratio application and options for retreatment as well as
introduction of additional mixing turbulence after the dispersant treatment if necessary);
Monitoring of oil concentration and particle size distribution in the water column under
the slick.
Due to restrictions on dispersant use, the spraying operations could not be conducted. Therefore,
dispersant effectiveness on the sampled surface oil was only assessed by a simple field kit
effectiveness test (SINTEF FET test), with the tests performed onboard the vessel immediately
after the sampling.
It is hoped that the data generated and presented in this report will yield valuable input to the
operational surface application strategies with regard to the use of dispersant going forward in
relation to the DWH incident.
We also hope that a similar monitoring and test spray program can be carried out according to
original plans that will be of operational use as the dispersant response moves forward.
009778
~SINTEF
2 Introduction
The diving vessel MN Mr. Joe was used as a platform for the experiments, and the objective of
the cruise was to identify drifting oil from the DWH release at various stages of weathering. The
emulsion needed to be sampled and the physical properties and dispersibility of the samples
tested.
A relationship between the physical properties and dispersant efficiency was established in order
to obtain a better understanding of the time window for the use of dispersants as a countermeasure
on the released DWH oil.
The following scientists participated:
Brian Parscal (Clean Islands Council):
Cruise leader! communication coordinator,

SMART monitoring
Scientific coordinator
SamplinglPhysico-chemical analysis
UVF and LISST monitoring
Per S. Daling (SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway):

Frode Leirvik (SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway):
Ken Trudel (Sy Ross Ltd., Ottawa, Canada):
In addition, two engineers from OSR, Southampton, UK participated in operating the AFEDO
boat spray system.
The cruise was conducted in early June of201O, with the vessel leaving Port Fourchon on
Wednesday June 2 nd at 9 pm and returning to Port Fourchon on the morning of Saturday June 5th
The wind conditions during the cruise are presented below:
10
9
8
7
, .-V,
3
.-.
"-
'"-
...."...
--
~i
'-/
!::1
"
!5
---
!"? ;.;
!l!>
~ ~ "
'"
"'" !:: !5 '" '"c !5
~
June 2
Figure 2.1 -
!::1
"!'1 " !il "!l? ~

"'" "'" "'" "'" "'"
~
June 3
P1
!:l !!l
;.;
"
"q "
~
!:: '"
~ ~ ;.;
'" ~ ~ ;.; ~ ~
"'" !:: " "'" '"" " '"<> "'"
!:1
June 4
Recorded wind speed (m/s) at the release source (N28.673 W88.282)

(Ref Hindcast MetOcean datafrom NOAA). Local time is shown in the figure.
009779
(G SINTEF
3 Sampling Log
With aerial support guided from the BP Incident Command Post (ICP) in Houma, the vessel
identified and sampled one sheen/rainbow area (Position 1) and one emulsified slick (Position 2)
on June 4th , in addition to two emulsified slicks (Positions 3 and 4) with very different emulsion
properties on June 5th,
Sampling and analysis methods are described in Chapter 4, sampling positions are described in
Chapter 3 and results from the physical characterization and dispersibility testing are described in
Chapter 5
3.1 Sample Locations

Sampling was performed in five locations at different distances from the DWH source. The GPS
track from the Mr. Joe and sampling positions are shown in Figure 3.1 Positions labeled "Shut
down" and "Start up" are the stop and start of the GPS logging at night.
Figure 3.1 - Track from Mr. Joe and the sampling positions compared to the DWH source
009780
j) SINTEF
3.1.1
Position 1
Samples at Position 1 were taken close to the 5-mile exclusion zone downwind (North) from the
DWH source, including a thin oil film of sheen and rainbow corresponding to an oil film
thickness of approximately < 0.5 - 5 IJm (according to Bonn Agreement Appearance Codes).
Three samples of the oil film were taken using a pre-rinsed adsorbent Teflon net.The sample
volumes were too small to perform any physical characterization or dispersibility testing. The
samples were taken for documentation and eventual fingerprinting/chemical analysis (e.g. for
identifYing eventual traces of dispersant components in the thin oil film).
Figure 3.2 - Thin oil (sheen and rainbow) in sampling ofPosition 1

No thick (combatable oil above 50llm) could be observed while the vessel was in the area.
Samples were taken 4-5 nm (i.e. 10-12 h of drifting time) from the source. The absence of thick
oil in this area indicates that a significant amount ofthe surfacing oil had been naturally
redispersed into the water column at the reigning sea states. The lifetime of surfacing oil at high
sea states is further discussed in Chapter 5.4.
Sample date: June 3, 2010
Sampling time: 16:20
GPS position: N2849.9 W88OZ2.1
Wind speed: 12-15 knots
Wind direction: from the south (180~
Wave height: (breaking waves)
009781
~SINTEF
3.1.2 Position 2
Samples were taken 12 nm miles NE (downwind) from the DWH source. The slick was only 100200 m long and 2-10 m wide, and the oil was readily spreading on the sea surface. The emulsion
was light brown in color.. indicating significant emulsification. The slick thickness was visually
assessed as having a maximum thickness of approximately 1-2 mm based on evaluation ofthe oil
adsorbed on the pad (see Figure 4.5). One emulsion sample was taken for characterization of
physical properties and dispersibility, and one pad sample was taken for a later quantitative
detennination of the slick's thickness.
Figure 3.3 - Slick sampled in Position 2

Sampling time: 18:05-18:25
GPS position: N2856.881 W8813.063
Wind direction: from S/SE
Wave height: some breaking waves and white caps
009782
G)SINTEF
3.1.3 Position 3
Samples were taken 17nm NE (downwind) from the DWH source. The slick was approximately
100 x 30 meters. A portion of the slick was concentrated against the hull of the ship, making bulk
sampling easy. 1.5 L of emulsion sample was taken for the characterization of physical properties
and dispersibiHty. Four slick thickness samples (pad samples) were collected from the freedrifting part of the slick (not influenced by the hull of the ship). Based on visual inspections of the
adsorbent pad samples (see Figure 4.5), the thickness was preliminarily assessed to be
approximately 2-4 mm. The emulsion was light brown lorange Ireddish in color and appeared
more elastic and less prone to spreading on the sea surface, which indicates that this slick had
been heavily weathered (evaporative loss, emulsification and photo-oxidation).

Sampling time: 09:00-09:45
GPS position: N2857.537 W88008.662
Wind direction: from the South
009783
G) SINTEF
3.1.4
Position 4
Samples were taken 10 nm miles NE (downwind) from the DWH source. The sampled slick was
approximately 50 x 30 meters, and was part of a continuous belt of slicks aligned downwind from
the DWH source. The slick thickness was visually assessed to approximately <0.5 -2 mm. The
emulsion was dark brown, and darker than the emulsions in Positions 2 and 3. This dark color
indicates a lower degree of weathering than the emulsion in Positions 2 and 3. One bulk emulsion
sample was taken for the characterization of physical properties and dispersibility. Three pad
samples were taken for later determination of the slick's thickness.

Sample date: June 4,2010
Sampling time: 10:30-11 :00
GPS position: N2852.32 W8812.0
Wind direction: from the South
009784
{jSINTEF
10
4 Sampling and Analysis

The surface emulsion was sampled using the SINTEF oil sampling kit (see Figure 4.1) and
collected in a funnel equipped with a stopcock (Figure 4.1 right). The emulsion was left in the
funnel for 10 minutes to allow free water trapped in the emulsion to settle out. The free water was
then drained off through the stopcock.
Figure 4.1 - SINTEF samplingfleld kit for surface sampling; right: funnel equipped with a
stopcock for settling out free water
The oil was sampled in a 1 liter jar, and sub samples were also transferred into five 40 mt vials.
Three of the vials were used for the determination of the water content and evaporative loss.
Viscosity
The viscosity was measured in the field with a Brookfield DV-E 98945-0 rotational field
viscosimeter, using a selection of rotational speeds (2.5,5, 10,20,30,50 and 100 rpm). The
viscometer used was an "infinite sea" system, meaning that the measuring system rotates in a
sample jar with a large distance to the container walls. Consequently, the exact shear rate at which
the viscosity was reported was not precisely documented. The field measurements were calibrated
and validated with new viscosity measurements when the emulsion samples arrived at SINTEF's
laboratories by the use of a Physica MCR 300, with viscosity measurements over a range of shear
rates and under temperature controlled conditions. Viscosity is the most important parameter we
use in order to obtain a link to the dispersibility properties of oil. Ifwe can find the tentative
"upper viscosity border" for the use of dispersants on weathered emulsions for the specific DWH
oil, we can use numerical Oil Weathering models to estimate the tentative "time window"
(window of opportunity) for the operative use of dispersants.
009785
~SINTEF
11
Figure 4.2 - Viscosity measurement ofemulsions using a Brookfield rotation field viscosimeter
Dispersibility Testing
The dispersibility of the emulsions was qualitatively evaluated using the SINTEF field
effectiveness test (FET test). The FET test is performed by adding 1.5ml of emulsion to a 100 ml
measuring cylinder with 80 m!. of sea water. Six droplets (- 60 mg) of dispersant are added to the
oil. The cylinder is tilted gently every two seconds for 1 minute in order to properly disperse the
oil. The oil droplets still left in the water are observed to give a coarse assessment of the
dispersibility. Based on the observed concentration and droplet size, the dispersibility is
categorized as: good, reduced or poor.
Figure 4.3 - SINTEF Field Effectiveness Dispersibility test (FET test); A) before tilting, B) after
tilting, with non-treated oil to the right
Water Content
The water content was preliminarily determined in the field by breaking the emulsion. Twenty
droplets of the emulsion breaker were added to a 40 ml vial and shaken to blend the emulsion
breaker. The vial was then placed on a heater plate at 50CI120F for a minimum ofthree hours.
The water content was measured with a ruler as to the height of the oil and water in the vial,
though some of the sampled emulsions could not be totally broken with the emulsion breaker. For
that reason, the water content in the emulsified oil samples was analyzed by Karl Fisher titration
at SINTEF.
009786
~SINTEF
12
Figure 4.4 - Vials ofemulsion before and after the addition ofemulsion breaker followed by
heating and settling
Density
The density of the w/o-emulsions was measured at SINTEF's laboratories.
Method: ASTM 04052-81 at both 32C/90F and 15.SoC/60F.
Evaporative Loss
The evaporative loss of the oil in the emulsion was estimated using a GC-FID analysis. By
comparing the depletion of n-alkanes in the emulsions with GC analysis and the True Boiling
Point (TBP) curve of the fresh crude oil (see Appendix), a good estimate of the evaporative loss
can be made.
009787
G>SINTEF
13
Slick Thickness
The slick thickness 3-4 mm) can be detennined by using an adsorbent pad (see Figure 4.5)
carefully laid on top of the slick. As the pad is lifted, the oil is close to being quantitatively
adsorbed. The thickness ofthe slick (emulsion) can be calculated based on the amount of
emulsion and the known area of the pad. The amount of emulsion is quantified in the laboratory
either gravimetrically or by solvent extraction and a subsequent quantitative analysis.
Figure 4.5 - Oilfilm thickness sampling using adsorption pads usedfor both visual estimates and
later for quantifYing the amount of emulsion adsorbed to the pad (in the SINTEF laboratory)
009788
~SINTEF
14
5 Results of Physical and Chemical Measurements

A summary of the main findings of the measurements carried out on the Mr. Joe and the followup analysis at SINTEF are shown in Chapter 5.1 (further details of the analysis are given in
Chapter 5.2).
5.1 Main Findings

Table 5.1 summarizes the measurements and observations taken during sampling and analysis on
the Mr. Joe. Table 5.2 summarizes the supplementary follow-up analysis at SINTEF's
laboratories.
Table 5.1 - Results from the analysis and testing performed on the Mr. Joe. Corexit 9500 is used
as dispersant in the dispersant Field effectiveness test (DER=1:25).
Position 2
Position 3
Position 4
Emulsion
thickness ( rrim)
Visual estimate
1-2 mm
2-5mm
0.S-2mm
Water content
Dispersibi lity
(vol%) using
Viscosity
in FETtest
emulsion breaker (mPas@30rpm)
-60%
3300
Good
< 5% settled out
7200
Good
I
-30%
1040
Good
Table 5.2 - Resultsfrom the follow-up analysis at SINTEF's laboratories. Corexit 9500 is used as
dispersant in the dispersant Field effectiveness test (DER=1:25).
...
Emulsion
thickness
','.. .(mm)1)
'Position 2
1.3
."
Evap.
Density
(kg!!)
at
Water ,'I',
loss
content
(wt%)"" vol%)
32"CI900F
67%
0.961
47
1
Viscosity. DisperSibility
VISc:6sity
(mPas)10f1 (mPas)10$1, inFEr test
at32~CJ900F at 27"CI8;1eFlat27CI81 OF
1850/3680
3540
Reduced
Position 3
Position 4
2.6-3.7
50
0.9-1.4
44
1)
Quantified emulSIon on the pads
50%
33%
0.975
0.956
7230
1250
12500
2030
(poor)
It was not possible to measure the exact temperature in the emulsions during sampling in the field.
However, the follow-up viscosity analysis at SINTEF carried out under controlled temperatures
and shear rates indicates that the emulsions sampled on the sea surface must have been - 32-34C
(i.e. SoC higher than the sea temperature that was reported to be 27-28C). This deviation can be
explained because of sunlight heating the emulsion. A similar deviation between emulsion
temperatures and surface emulsion has also previously been observed in the field during sunny
conditions (Lewis et aI., 1998).
A visual inspection of the dispersibility using the non-quantitative FET test indicated that
emulsions with viscosities up to - 7000 mPas are highly dispersible at the dosage used in the tests
(a dispersant to emulsion ratio (DER) of 1:25). A single FET check of the most weathered
emulsion (Pos. 3) at a temperature of 27C/81 F was revealed to be significantly less dispersible
(see Table 5.2). The temperature of the emulsion at 27C/81 OF was 12500 mPas.
A further discussion concerning dispersant dosage from an operational point of view is discussed
in Chapter 6.2.
009789
~SINTEF
15
5.2 Detailed Findings
Water Content and Density of the Emulsion

The use of emulsion breaker to separate and settle out the water in the emulsions was not
successful. As a result, the water content in the emulsified oil samples was analyzed by Karl
Fisher titration at SINTEF's laboratories. The density ofthe w/o-emulsions was measured at 32
and IS.SoC, with Table 5.3 giving a summary of the water content and density measurement (an
average of three parallels).
The water content in the most weathered emulsion (taken at Position 3) reveals a significantly
lower water content (50%) compared to the emulsion in Pos. 2 (67%). This is likely due to the
evaporation of water from the emulsion that had taken place. Such a reduction in the water
content of emulsions over the course of several days of weathering under sunny conditions at sea
has also been previously reported (e.g. Dating and Str0m, 1999).
Table 5.3- Resultsfrom the water content and density measurements at SINTEF's laboratories
Density
Density ..
Position 2
Position 3
Position 4
Watercontent
(kg/-I)
(kg4;.1)
(vot%)
at 32"CI90"F
at 15.5"CI6O"F
67%
50%
33%
0.961
0.975
0.956
- 11
0.983
0.965
I)'
Not pOSSIble to measure due to unstable emulSIOn
Evaporative Loss
A GCIFID analysis of the emulsions samples was performed at SlNTEF. The chromatograms are
shown in Figure 5.1. A GC chromatogram ofthe fresh crude (from NOAA) and the True Boiling
Point curve are shown in the appendix. Past results using a GC analysis of simulated evaporation
studies at SINTEF (Daling and Strem, 1999) have been used to estimate the evaporative Joss from
the samples. The chromatograms for fresh and evaporated oil were compared (see Figures 5.1 and
A 2) and a n-alkane with a depletion of 50% was identified. Experience demonstrates that the
boiling point of this n-alkane corresponds to the degree of evaporation in an atmospheric
distillation of the oil. The evaporative loss can therefore be read from the True Boiling Point
curve at this temperature (see Table 5.4.).
Table 5.4 - Evaporative loss based on GC-FID analysis
Position 2
Position 3
Position 4
47%
50%
44%
009790
((j SINTEF
16
,A
Location 2
000
-7 n-Cls+ residue:
-7 bp=270C+
-7 47 wt. % evap. loss
200
315
p..
Location 3
,.
Location 4
100
Figure 5.1 - Gas chromatograms of the samples
009791
~SINTEF
17
Viscosity
Results from the viscosity measurements (using the Brookefield field viscometer) onboard the Mr.
Joe are shown in Table 5.2 and Figure 5.2. The viscosity ofthe emulsion in the three locations
covers a wide range, thereby indicating a significant difference in the weathering time for the
three sampled slicks. It should be noted that the measuring system is not according to ASTMIDIN
standards: The "infinite sea" system used does not yield a well-defined shear rate for the viscosity
measurements taken. Thus, the reported results should not be used as absolute values, but are
good for a comparison between samples.
Table 5.5 Viscosity as afonction o/rotational speed/or the emulsions sampled at the three
positions (Brookfield field viscosimeter)
..............
t:',." . .
'.,
.'
Position 2
Position 3
Position 4
Viscosity (mPas,atdiffeteIlt rotational speeds

10 rPm . 20 rpm gO rpm 50 rpm 100 rom
3720
3500
3300
2850
2350
9240
7200
6300
8000
5100
1040
1070
1060
1010
900
!
10000
9000
eooo
7000
i.Ii.
6000
It 5000
;;
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
20
40
60
eo
100
120
rpm
Figure 5.2 - Viscosity as a/unction o/rotational speed/or the emulsions sampled at the three
locations
The viscosities of the emulsions were also measured at SINTEF under temperature controlled
conditions and at defined shear rates using a Physica rheometer. The results are given in Table
5.6, with the viscosity measured at 27C/81F (sea temperature) and 32C/90F. By comparing
the field and laboratory measurements, we see a good correlation between the 30 rpm
measurements in the field and the measurements performed at 32C at a shear rate of 10 Sl, which
indicates that the temperature in the emulsions sampled on the sea surface must have been - 3234C (90-93F).
009792
((j SINTEF
18
Table 5.6 - Viscosity o/the samples at two temperatures and a range o/shear rates (Physica
rheometer)
'.
.'.
Viscos1t(mPas)
Position 2 27C/81F
Position 3 27C/81 F
Position 427C/81F
1s7'
7860
33200
4980
Position 232C/90F
Position 332C/90F
Position 432C/90F
4250
11500
2330
'.'
. ...
5s:'
.:,
10.5'1." '.
5Os1
4540
16500
2580
3540
12500
2030
1980
6710
1230
2410
8510
1520
1850
7230
1250
1260
4450
806
Slick Thickness
Some knowledge concerning the approximate thickness of a slick is useful for quantifying the
volume of the slicks, as well as calculating the dosage when treating with dispersants. This is
commented on further in Chapter 6.
A preliminary estimate of the emulsion thicknesses based on a visual inspection of the pad
samples was carried out immediately after sampling (see Table 5.1). The amount of emulsion on
the adsorbent pads was later quantified at SINTEF's laboratories where the thickness was also
calculated (see Table 5.7).
Table 5.7- Quantified slick thicknesses

Location
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
Duplicates
A
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
Weight emulsion
(g)
57
117
125
161
114
60
38
53
Emulsion thickness
(mm)
1.3
2.7
2.9
3.7
.2.6
1.4
0.9
1.2
J
I
009793
~SINTEF
19
Dispersibility
According to the criteria of the dispersant Field Effectiveness Test (FET test), all the samples
were assessed as being dispersible, which means that a high concentration of small droplets were
formed in all ofthe tests. The FET test only gives a rough characterization of dispersibility and no
quantitative number in terms of how good the dispersibility of the emulsions is. Nonetheless, the
test does supply a qualitative linkage to earlier field observations (e.g. Fiocco et ai., 1999; Daling
et aI., 2010). It can be assumed that given the presence of breaking waves, all the sampled slicks
would have dispersed if treated with dispersants given the same dispersant to emulsion ratios used
in the tests (DER = I: 25). Figure 5.3 shows images of the Field Effectiveness Test after
dispersant treatment and agitation, and the sample treated with dispersants is compared to an
untreated sample. For the emulsion from Position 4, small droplets are formed even for the
untreated sample, though not at the same concentrations as for the treated sample.
Figure 5.3 - Images o/the Field Effectiveness Test after the addition ofdispersants and agitation.
The dispersant treated sample is compared to an untreated sample.
009794
(j SINTEF
20
5.3 Predicting the Evaporation of Oil versus Time at Sea

At the moment, no laboratory weathering studies have been conducted using MC252 crude oil,
thus making it difficult to give good and reliable predictions of the weathering properties of the oil
with time at sea. Figure 5.4 gives a preliminary prediction ofthe evaporative loss using this oil as
input to the SINTEF OWM (Norwegian Oseberg Crude oil with the True Boiling Point curve.
adjusted according to the TBC in Appendix A (Fig. Al In the predictions, a terminal oil film
thickness of I mm is assumed (i.e. 2-3 mm of emulsion).
According to NOAA MetOcean data, the wind speed prior to the sampling had been 2-5m1s.
Table 5.8 indicates a tentative time at sea for the three emulsions as indicated by the predicted
evaporative loss shown in Figure 5.4.
Table 5.8 - Tentative time at sea based on evaporative loss and use ofthe SINTEF OWM
Position 2
Position 3
Position 4
Evaporative' loss
(wt%)
47%
50%
44%
Tentative timet
at sea
2-3 days
4-5 days
I
1-2 days
I
Pro pert)': EVAP()RATIVE LOSS
Oil Type: MC252 MODEL Oil YS.J
~SINTEF
Des:crip'tion: Model Oil: Os:&be.g Blend 2001>

Data Sourc;e: SINTEF "'lUeria's and Chemisny (2010}. Weatherit
S~uf.. ot rel.ne- Ttrmin.. t OiUilm thick rUI$$: 1 mm
Rel_ase- r.ae'durcltion: 1.33 mrtotte ton:slminute foor 1~ ffllnl.1te($)
_ " " .. 4 Spud ( ..... ): 10

- ........ W ... <I $p~.d (mIs): 5
_Wnd $p d (mis)::2
Sell surface temperature:: 32: C
OO~~.... -+,-_i~~----~--~~--~--~~~----~
~~~----;-----;-----~~~~~~~~-----r-+~r-----------1
iI
...<s
~~~-,~----~~~~~----~-+~----~----~-+~~--------~
Figure 5.4 - Predicted evaporative loss using the SINTEF OWM

The degree of weathering should also be documented by comparing the weathering to PAH target
ratios versus biomarkers based on an existing analysis of weathered oil samples taken during this
incident (ref. Steve Mudge. pers.com.).
009795
~SINTEF
21
5.4 Predicting the Lifetime at Sea of Oil Released in Breaking Wave Conditions
A release from deep water with a high Gas to Oil ratio will only form a thin oil slick on the sea
surface. At low wind speeds, the oil can concentrate to a higher slick thickness. A film thickness
above 100 Ilm is generally considered as a prerequisite minimum initial thickness for emulsion
formation. At higher wind speeds, natural dispersion will be high and the slick may not
concentrate into high enough thicknesses for emulsions to form.
When sampling in Position 1 Snm from the source) on the afternoon of June 3rd, no thick oil
could be observed downwind from the source. As shown in Figure 2.1 wind speeds earlier in the
day had been 6-9 mls (12-19 knots).
The SINTEF OWM model has been used to give an indication ofthe lifetime of oil released under
conditions prior to the sampling time on June 3 rd Model data is used as input to the SINTEF
OWM since weathering data does not exist for oil from the DWH release (The Norwegian
Oseberg Crude oil with the True Boiling Point curve adjusted according to the TBC in Appendix
A (Fig. AI.
Release conditions used as input to the OWM were:
Initial thickness: 0.2mm
Release rate: 1.33 metric tons/minute
Evaporative loss and natural dispersion will contribute to removing oil from the sea surface. Both
processes are dependent on the wind speed. The Figure 5.5 shows the predicted residual oil on the
sea surface at different wind speeds, although this prediction is only valid for oil surfacing as a
thin film and is subject to the predicted wind speed for its entire lifetime. The predictions are not
valid for oil released under calmer conditions, and that is already weathered when high winds
occur (as with the three sampled slicks).
(j SINTEF
Property: SURFACE EMULSION

-10mls
9m/s
-8mfs
2.0 C> 2010

Pre<!. Dalo: June. 17, 2010
7mfs
Summer Conditions (27C)

100
90
~
!0:
i.
.
~
."
80
70
60
50
40
iii
!"
30
20
10
0,5
2
Hours
12
4 5
Days
Figure 5.5 - Prediction ofthe lifetimefor oil on the sea surface using the SINTEF Oil Weathering
Model. Input to the model is similar to the DWH release conditions.
009796
~SINTEF
22
6 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Time Window for tbe Use of Dispersants
The main objective of the experiments was to find a relationship between the degree of
weathering and dispersibility. The sampled emulsions have a span in viscosity from ca. 1200 to
7200mPas (reported at 30 rpm, shear rate 10). All the tested emulsions demonstrated a good
dispersibility using the Field Effectiveness Test (FET test). The test does not measure
dispersibility from a quantitative standpoint, although it does document the formation of small
droplets upon treatment with dispersants.
It can be assumed that given the presence of braking waves, all the sampled slicks would have
dispersed if treated with dispersants at the same dispersant to emulsion ratios used in the test
(DER = 1: 25).
As all the identified slicks showed a good dispersibility, a time window for the use of dispersants
could not be established baSed on the FET test in the field. A single FET check of the most
weathered emulsion (Pos. 3) at a lower temperature (27C/Sl OF) with a viscosity of 12500 mPas
was shown to be significantly less dispersible. This indicates that for MC252 oil, weathered
emulsions up to 7000-S000mPas are easily (good) dispersible. Dispersibility may, however, be
reduced when viscosity reaches 12000-15000 mPas.
6.2 Dispersant Dosage
The required dispersant dosage to obtain good dispersant efficiency will depend on the degree of
weathering ofthe emulsion to be treated. The thickness of the oil slick also increases with
weathering as physical properties of the emulsion changes.
A dosage of5 US Gallons Per Acre (USGPA) is used as a standard for aerial application.
Calculating the dosage based on area (gallons per acre) does not take into account the thickness of
the slick. Applying a dosage of5 USGPA to a 1 mm slick will yield a dispersant/emulsion-ratio of
1:200. Based on the findings from this study, it is to be assumed that heavily weathered slicks will
have thicknesses in (or above) the documented range of2-5 mm. This may give a
dispersant/emulsion-ratio as low as 1: 1000, which is probably not sufficient to disperse a heavily
weathered emulsion.
When applying dispersants from a vessel, a dosage of 25 USGPA to a 3mm thick slick would
correspond to a ratio of dispersant volume to oil volume of 1: 120. For a heavily weathered
emulsion, this dosage may be too low. To obtain a good dispersibility for a weathered emulsion,
the ratio should probably be closer to 1:25-1 :50. A retreatment with dispersant 1-2 h after the first
treatment is therefore recommended when applying dispersant to a thick emulsion (several mm).
009797
~SINTEF
23
6.3 Ongoing Follow-Up Studies and Recommendations

To validate and supplement the data generated in this study, a limited systematic dispersant
effectiveness study on the existing emulsion has been initiated at SINTEF's laboratories in order
to generate more quantitative data on the dispersibility of the weathered emulsions under various
dispersant to emulsion ratios (DERs) and different mixing energy conditions. This will give
valuable input/documentation to assist in coming up with more precise operative
recommendations/guidelines for dispersant application strategies in areas with emulsified oil.
It is further recommended that a follow-up cruise can be performed to supplement this study since
this study only performed the documentation of physical properties combined with dispersant
field effectiveness testing. Future studies should also include te~t spraying from a vessel (as
originally described in the plans), and the dispersing effect should be documented through
measurements of concentrations and particle size distribution in the water column.
009798
~SINTEF
24
7 References
Dating, P.S., T. Stmm, 1999. Weathering of Oils at Sea: ModellField Data Comparisons. Spill
Science and Technology Bulletin, Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 63-74, 1999.
Daling, P.S., P.J. Brandvik, and J.B. Resby, 2010. "Dispersant Effectiveness Testing of Crude Oils
Weathered under Various Ice Conditions". Presentation at the Thirty-third AMOP Technical
Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Fiocco, RJ., P.S. Daling, G. DeMarco, and RR. Lessard, 1999. Advancing LaboratorylField
Dispersant Effectiveness Testing. Proceedings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference,
API, Washington D.C., paper #400.
NOAA Report, 2010. "Analysis of Hydrocarbons in Samples from the Cruise of the RIV
Weatherbird II, May 23-26, 2010).
Intertek: Crude Oil May 17,2010; Lab. Ref: 201 0-NOLA-003058-00 1).
009799
0) SINTEF
25
Appendix
100
90
80
-].
'#.
60
"1:1
S 50
I!
0
l:I.
IV
Jj
/"
/'
70
40
30
20
I
I
---"
10
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Temperature (OC)
Figure A.l- True Boiling Point curve/rom Intertek: Crude Oil May]7, 2010,
(Lab. Ref 20l0-NOLA-003058-00l)
.....
~".::,,","'.~c:.-4
Riser Fluid
4/28
Figure A 2 - Gas chromatogram a/Source Oil (ref NOAA-report: "Analysis a/Hydrocarbons in

Samples taken from the Cruise a/the RlV Weatherbird II, May 23-26,2010',)
009800
SINTEF REPORT
(j SINTEF
TITLE
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry

P.O.Box:
Address:
Location:
Telephone:
Fax:
Laboratory study of the dispersibility of DWH surface

emulsions.
4760 Siuppen
NO-7465 Trondheim,
NORWAY
Brattl!lrkaia 17C,
4. etg.
+47 4000 3730
+47 930 70730
AUTHOR(S)
Enterprise No.: NO 948 007 029 MVA
Frode Leirvik, Kjersti Almas and Per S. Daling

CLIENT(S)
BP
REPORT NO.
I CLASSIFICATION
SfNTEF A16134 IUnrestricted
CLIENTS REF.
! David
Fritz
CLASS. THIS PAGE
ISBN
PROJECT NO.
Unrestricted
978-82-14-05008-0 80]599
ELECTRONIC FILE CODe
PROJECT MANAGER (NAME. SIGN.)
Report dispersibilily testing DVVrLflnal.docx
Per Daling
FILE CODE
DATE
APPROVED BY (NAME, POSITION, SIGN.)
2010-07-13
Tore Aunaas, Research Director
INO. OF PAGESJAPPENDICES
17
ICHECKED BY (NAME, SIGN.)

Ivar Singsaas
ABSTRACT
A study using the MNS and IFP dispersibility tests has been perfonned at SINTEF on three emulsions from the
DWH spill.
Difference in effectiveness of different disDersant products: The products Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527 and OSR 52
[were tested on two emulsions with different degrees of we atering (Viscosities of2700 and 7200mPas) . Corexit
~500 show good efficiency for both emulsions, Corexit 9527 showed reduced effectiveness for the heavily
lWeatered emulsion, while OSR 52 showed reduced dispersibility for both tested emulsions
Dispersant dosage:Tests were perfonned on two emulsions with a range of dispersant dosages. Results show that a
elatively high dosage (DER = 1:25 or higher) was required to obtain good dispersant efficiency for the heavily
lWeathered emulsion. For less weathered emulsions a lower dosage was sufficient..
Aerial application of dispersants at a low dosage (5USGPA) can be recommended for moderately weathered
~mulsion (dark brown colour)
Boat application is recommended for highly weathered emulsions (light browniorange).A high dosage should be
tused (25USGPA), and reapplication should be considered if necessary.
Mixing ener!!V reauirements: Results from tests with different energy input were compared to assess the
equirement for mixing energy on the sea surface to disperse the emulsions. Results show that as long as mixing
~nergy is sufficiently high (Le. breaking waves) even the most weathered sample showed good dispersibility (given
~ufficient dosage of dispersants). At low sea states artificial mixing energy may be a recommended option 0.5-1
~our after dispersant application.
Viscosity Limit for use of dispersants: Testing indicate reduced dispersibility for emulsions with viscosity >9000
mPas, and poor dispersibility >25000mPas. These limits are valid for DER=1 :25.
KEYWORDS
GROUP'
GROUP 2
SELECTED BY AUTHOR
ENGLISH
NORWEGIAN
009801
(GJ) SINTEF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background .......................................................................................................................... 13
Experiemental Setu p.............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 The MNS Test .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 The IFP Test ..................................................................................................................... 5
Sampling and Physical Characterisation of the Test Emulsions ....................................... 6
Experimental Results ............................................................................................................. 8

4.1 Testing with Various Dispersants ..................................................................................... 8
4.2 Testing with Various Dispersant Emulsion Ratios (DER) ............................................... 9
4.3 Testing with Different Energy Input .............................................................................. 10
4.4 Chemical Dispersibility vs Viscosity ............................................................................. 1 I
4.5 Visual Observations During Testing .............................................................................. 13
Conclusions and Operational Recommendations ............................................................. 15

5.1 Testing with different dispersant products ..................................................................... IS
5.2 Dispersant dosage requirement ...................................................................................... 15
5.3 Sea state dependency ...................................................................................................... 16
5.4 Viscosity limit for use of dispersants ............................................................................. 16
References
......................................................................................................................... 17
009802
(;)) SINTEF
1 Background
A sampling campaign were conducted in the vicinity of the DWH release point cruise in the
period June 2-5. Three samples were taken of weathered DWH-oil and the physical properties of
the samples have been characterised. The sampled emulsions had a span in weathering time
estimated to 1 to 5 days on the sea surface. The span in weathering gives the emulsions very
different physical properties. Sampling and physical characterisation of the emulsions are
described in the cruise report (Leirvik,et. al. 20 10).
As the physical properties change the dispersibility of the emulsions will change. From an
operational point of view this would mean that different dispersant application strategies may be
needed for emulsions at different stages of weathering.
A dispersibiltiy study has been performed at SINTEF on the sampled emulsions. The following
operational aspects have been studied:
.
Dosage of dispersant at different stages of emulsion weathering.
Effectiveness of three dispersant products at different stages of emulsion weathering
Mixing energy required to efficiently disperse the DWH emulsions.
Viscosity Limit for the dispersibility ofDWH emulsions.
The IFP and MNS dispersibility tests are described in Chapter 2. Sampling positions and the
physical properties of the emulsions are summarised in Chapter 3. Results from the dispersibility
testing are given in Chapter 4. Conclusions and operational recommendations are given in Chapter
5.
009803
~SINTEF
2 Experiemental Setup
There are several different tests for evaluating the effectiveness of chemical dispersants. Energy
input will differ in different tests, and the obtained effectiveness will be representative for
different wave energies. Most tests in this study is performed using the medium-to-high energy
MNS test (representing breaking wave conditions). The MNS test is described in chapter 2.1. To
assess the energy requirement for dispersing emulsions at different stages of weathering. Tests
have also been performed with the low energy IFP test. The IFP test is described in chapter 2.2 .
2.1 The MNS Test

The MNS test (Mackay-Nadeau-Szeto, Mackay and Szeto, 1980) is estimated to correspond to a
medium to high sea-state condition with breaking waves. The energy input in this system, applied
by streaming air across the oil/water surface, produces a circular wave motion. The sample of the
oily water is taken under dynamic conditions after a mixing period of 5 min. The test apparatus is
shown in Figure 2.1.
MNS Test
Air outlet
Thermometer
~~I
Water sampling tube
Air inlet
Oil containment ring
Air blower
Cooling coil
Figure 2.1 MNS test apparatus.

When the test results in the MNS test shows an effectiveness> 70 80%, the emulsion is
considered to be easily (good) dispersible. In the range down to 5% effectiveness, the emulsion is
still dispersible, however, the dispersion process may need some more time. Effectiveness < 5%
means that the emulsions is poorly dispersible when using dispersant. These laboratory-derived
dispersibility borders have been established based on correlations to field studies (Daling and
Str0m, 1999).
009804
~SINTEF
2.2 The IFP Test

The IFP Test (Institute Francais du Petrole test, Bocard et ai, 1984) is a low energy test estimated
to represent low wave energies (2 - 5 mls wind speed). A ring beating up and down in the test
vessel at a given frequency, gives energy input to the seawater column. The water column is
continuously diluted, which gives a more realistic approach to field conditions compared to other
tests. The test apparatus is shown in Figure 2.2.
IFPTest
I. Experimental beaker
2. Peristaltic pump
3. Storage water
4. Sampling bottle
5. Surge bealer
6. Electro-magnet
7. Timer
8, Oil containment ring
Figure 2.2 IFP test apparatus.

When the test results in the IFP test shows an effectiveness - 50%, the emulsion is considered to
be easily (good) dispersible- even at low sea conditions. If the effectiveness is below 40 -50%
effectiveness, the emulsion may still be dispersible. During a response operation under calm
conditions in the field, additional mixing energy may be required. This extra turbulence can be
supplied by e.g. propel-washing from vessels or by using high delivery FI-FI monitors 1-2 hours
after a dispersant application in order to fulfil the dispersion process.
009805
CGJ) SINTEF
3 Sampling and Physical Characterisation of the Test Emulsions

The physico-chemical properties of the sampled emulsions were characterised both on site, and in
analysis at SINTEF laboratories. The results from the measurements are summarised in Table 3.1.
The sampling positions are shown in Figure 3.1, and the samples are described in brief below.
Sampling and analysis is described in detail in the cruise report (Leirvik et.al.,2010).
Table 3.1 Summary ofphysical and chemical properties of the sampled emulsion
Evaporative loss (wt%)
Estimated time on sea surface (days)
Emulsion thickness (mm)
Water content (vol%)
Density (glmI)
Viscosity (mPas) 10 S'l at 32e
Viscosity (mPas)lO s'! at 27e
Viscosity (mPas)10 S1 at 25e
Viscosity (mPas)lO S'l at 22e
Viscosity (mPas) 10 Sl at 200 e
Position 2
47
1-1.5
1.3
67
0.961
2770
3540
Figure 3.1 Sample positions compared to the DWH source
Position 3
50
4-5
2.6-3.7
50
0.975
7230
12500
17900
24700
32300
Position 4
44
2-3
0.9-1.4
33
0.956
1250
2030
009806
(G)) SINTEF
Position 2
Samples were taken 12 nm miles NE
(downwind) from the DWH source. The
slick was only 100-200 m long and 2] 0 m wide, and the oil was readily
spreading on the sea surface. The
emulsion was light brown in color"
indicating significant emulsification.
Figure 3.2 Emulsion in Position 2

Position 3
Samples were taken 17nm NE
slick was approximately 100 x 30
meters. The emulsion was light brown
lorange Ireddish in color and appeared
more elastic and less prone to spreading
on the sea surface, which indicates that
this slick had been heavily weathered
(evaporative Joss, emulsification and
photo-oxidation).

Position 4
Samples were taken ] 0 nm miles NE
sampled slick was approximately 50 x
30 meters, and was part of a continuous
belt of slicks aligned downwind from
the DWH source. The emulsion was
dark brown, and darker than the
emulsions in Positions 2 and 3. This
dark color indicates a lower degree of
weathering than the emulsion in
Positions 2 and 3.
009807
\\j SINTEF
4 Experimental Results
Laboratory tests have been performed to study different operational aspects. Comparative testing
between different dispersant products is described in chapter 4.1. Results from testing with
different dispersant dosages are shown in chapter 4.2. The requirement for energy is studied by
testing with a low energy test representing sea states without breaking waves (lFP), and a
Mediumlhigh energy test (MNS) representing sea states with breaking waves. The results are
shown in chapter 4.3. Viscosity limits for the dispersibility ofDWH emulsions have been
established by testing at increasing viscosities. This work is presented in Chapter 4.4.
4.1 Testing with Various Dispersants
Tests have been performed with different dispersant products for samples from position 2 and
position 3. The three tested products were Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527 and OSR52. The
comapartive tests were performed with a dispersant/emulsion-ratio (DER) of 1:25.
Table 4.1 Results from the MNS test with different dispersant products. DER= 1:25 in all tests.
Position 3
Position 2
(7200 mPas) (2770 mPas)
86
91
I
55
90
71
62
2
44
i
!
Corexit 9500
Corexit 9527
iOSR 52
blank
100 "
90
80
70
l!!
60
1;\
."
:i!
-s
50
;.
"... 40
"
.!!
E
...
30
20
10
0
Corexit9500
...
Corex!t9527
OSRS2
blank
"'-'"-'~."~
Figure 4.1 Results from the MNS test with different dispersant products. The dosage is 1:25 in all
tests.
Reduced effectiveness in the MNS test is defined as <75% (Daling and Strem, 1999), while poor
dispersibility is defined as <5%. The two Corexit products show good efficency for the moderatly
weathered emulsion from position 2, while OSR 52 have a somehow reduced dispersibility. For
the heavily weathered emulsion sampled in position 3, only Corexit 9500 show good
dispersibility, while Corexit 9527 and OSR 52 showed reduced dispersibility.
009808
~SINTEF
4.2 Testing with Various Dispersant Emulsion Ratios (DER)

Tests have been performed to study the dispersant effectiveness as a function of dispersant
dosage. The tests have been done on the emulsions from position 3 and position 4. The
medium/high energy MNS test has been used in the study. Results are shown in Table 4.2 and in
Figure 4.2.
Table 4.2 Results from the MNS test with Corexit 9500 at different dispersant dosages
%Effectiveness in the MNS test
DER
.1:10
1:25
1:50
1:100
1:250
no dispersant
Position 3
(7200 mPas)
81
86
44
Position 4
(1250mPas)
99
99
96
31
99
15
2
48
100
90
80
~
70
to
60
c
.!!
...
!f
!l
c
...l:!
50
.....
40
is
30
<II
20
10
0
....
;.:.
c:>
....;;:,
Vl
....
<i1
c:>
....;.:.
c:>
c:>
...;;:,
.."
:>
Q
CI.
.'
...
~
Figure 4.2 Results from the MNS testing with Corexit 9500 at different dispersant dosages.
Results show that at a dosage of 1:25 and higher, the dispersant efficiency is high for the highly
weathered emulsion sampled in position 3. At lower dosages the efficiency will gradually
decrease. Tests performed on the least weathered emulsion (position 4) show a good efficiency
for all the tested dosages.
009809
G)) SINTEF
10
4.3 Testing with Different Energy Input

To study the effect of energy input on the dispersibility testing has been performed with both the
MNS and IFP tests. The MNS is a high energy test representative to high sea states. The IFP test
supply a relatively low energy input and is thought to be representative for low sea states without
breaking waves. Results from testing with the two methods are shown in Table 4.3 and in Figure
4.3.
Table 4.3 Results from the MNS and IFP tests with samples from the different positions using
Corexit 9500 and DER=25.
I
I
i
Test effectiveness (wt%)
wI Corexit 9500 and DER=1:25

IFP
46
48
34
MNS
99
91
86
Position 4
I Position 2
I Position 3
100
80
~
~
.....
'"z
70
60
:= so
fj
c
:~
3D
20
10
o
Position 4
Position 2
Position 3
Increasing degree ofweathering
Figure 4.3 Results from the MNS and IFP tests with samples from the different postions using
Corexit 9500 and DER=1:25.
Results show that whith a dosage of 1:25 of Corexit 9500 all the samples show a relative good
dispersibility for the MNS test. This is in accordance to the conclusions for the tests performed
with the Field Effectiveness Test onboard MrJoe (Leirvik,et. a1.20 10). For the low energy IFP
samples from positions 2 and 4 show a slightly reduced dispersibility. The heavily weathered
sample from position 3 show a significant reduction in dispersibility.
009810
~SINTEF
11
4.4 Cbemical Dispersibility vs Viscosity

In systematic weathering studies performed over the past 20 years at SINTEF (Daling and
Stmm, 1999) an upper viscosity limit for an oils dispersibility is determined. The viscosity limit is
strongly related to the specific oil that is investigated. In this study with a limited amount of
emulsions even the most weathered emulsion had a good dispersibility (at32C), a viscosity limit
could not be established. Therefore additional testing where performed at lower temperatures to
yield dispersibility data on higher viscosities. The results from all tests done with the MNS test is
compared with the emulsion viscosities in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Results from the MNS test and the Viscosity ofthe emulsions. The table includes the
additional tests performed at lower temperatures. Tests are performed with Corexit 9500 and
DER=1:25.
Position Temperature
(0C)
32
32
32
28
25
22
20
2
3
3
3
3
3
Temperature
(OF)
90
90
90
82
77
72
68
Viscosity at shear rate MNS dispersant

1OS-I (mPas)
efficiency (wtOlo)
1250
99
91
3700
7230
86
12500
66
17000
44
24700
16
32300
0
The dispersant effectiveness from the MNS test is plotted against the emulsion viscosity in Figure
-'--'
o .L_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.'"'-_ _ _ _.___ ._._.<.-I>."_..,,'"'-__.--___..___....... __ .

1000
10000
100000
Viscositv (mPas)
Figure 4.4 Dispersant efficiency in the MNS tests plotted against viscosity. Viscosity is reported at
shear rate lOSI.
009811
~SINTEF
12
As described in chapter 2.1, in the MNS test reduced dispersibility is defined as below 75%, while
poor dispersibility is defined below 5%. Based on the curve drawn in Figure 4.4 reduced
dispersibility will occur for viscosites above 10000mPas, while poor dispersibility can be
expected for viscosities exceeding 25000 mPas. The drawn limits is based on studies using a
dispersant/emulsion-ratio of 1:25.
The time it take for emulsions to reach the defined viscosity limits will depend on the wind speed
and temperatures. The weatering time for the tested emulsions where estimated based on the
evaporative loss of the samples in the cruise report (Leirvik,et.al.,20 10). The estimated time on
the sea surface for the emulsions is shown in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 - Tentative time at sea based on evaporative loss and use o/the SINTEF Oil Weathering
Model.
...
Viscosity
Tentative. time
Evaporative 10$.$
Position 2
Position 3
Position 4
. (wt%)
(mPas)
alsea
47%
50%
44%
3700
7200
1250
23 days
45 days
1-2 days
009812
((j) SINTEF
13
4.5 Visual Observations During Testing

The moderately weathered emulsions sampled in position 2 and 4, generally dispersed well. For
the emuslion from position 4 small droplets were formed within the first minute of the test as
shown in Figure 4.5
Figure 4.5 Gradualformation ofsmall droplets with time in the MNS test. The image isfrom
testing with Emulsion 4 and Corexit 9500 at DER=i:25
In tests performed with the heavily weathered emulsion from position 3, the formation of sma))
droplets was slower. After five minutes (the test duration) a significant amount of small droplets
were formed, but strings of emulsion were still present in the water. This is demonstrated in
Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6 Gradual formation ofsmall droplets with time in the MNS test. The image is from
testing with Emulsion 3 and Corexit 9500 at DER= 1:25
009813
~SINTEF
14
In the IFP test the same effects could be observed. For the less weathered emulsions (Position 2
and 4) small droplets were formed to make a cafe au lait coloured suspension. In the tests with the
heavily weathered emulsion from position 3 the particles in suspension were non-spherical and
larger in size. This is exarnplified in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7 Droplet formation in the IFP test with the emulsion from position 3. The test is
peiformedwith Corexit 9500 and DER=i:25.
Even though not all dispersed particles are within the optimal particle size range, the dispersant
will contribute to breaking up the viscous emulsion and significantly reduce the lifetime of oil on
the sea surface.
Emulsions were also tested without addition of dispersants. Images from the tests are shown in
Figure 4.8. The natural dispersion in the tests with emulsions from position 2 and 4 were
relatively high. The emulsion from position 2 even formed quite small droplets. The emulsion
from position 3 did not spread on the surface of the test vessel, and few droplets formed at all.
Figure 4.8 Droplet formation in the MNS tests without addition ofdispersant in the different
positions.
009814
(j)) SINTEF
15
5 Conclusions and Operational Recommendations

5.1 Testing with different dispersant products
Tests have been performed with different dispersant products for one moderately weathered
emulsion (position 2/ 2770mPas) and one heavily weathered emulsion (position 3 /7250mPas).
The three tested products were Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527 and OSR52. The comapartive tests
were performed with a DER of 1:25.
The two Corexit products show good effectiveness for the moderatly weathered emulsion from
position 2, while OSR 52 showed somehow reduced dispersibility. For the heavily weathered
emulsion sampled in position 3, only Corexit 9500 show good dispersibility, while Corexit 9527
and OSR 52 showed reduced dispersibility 75% effectiveness in the MSN test).
5.2 Dispersant dosage requirement

A minimum DER is required to yield efficient dispersion of a slick. The required dosage usually
increases as the oil weathers on the sea surface. As the physical properties of the emulsion change
the thickness of the slick will also increase and the required dosage will increase accordingly. In
dispersant application operations the dosage is often given in US Gallons Per Acre (USGPA).
DispersantlEmulsion-ratio at different dosages is given at differing slick thicknesses in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 DispersantlEmulsion-ratio at different dosage and slick thickness
USGPA
5
25
2x25
DER at varying Slick thickness

1mm
2mm
4mm
1:200
1:50
1:25
1:400
1:100
1:50
1:800
1:200
1:100
Low!Moderately weathered emulsions (dark brown appearance)

The results show good dispersibility in the MNS test for the least weathered emulsion (Position
4). The emulsion disperses even at DER as low as I :250 in the MNS test. The slick sampled in
position 4 had a thickness of -Imm. To achieve a dispersant/emulsion-ratio of I :250 for a slick of
this thickness an application dosage of5 USGPA is required (Table 5.1). This mean that the low
dosage used in standard aerial application will be sufficient for emulsions at a such low degree of
weathering.
009815
j SINTEF
16
Highly weathered emulsions (light brown/orange appearance)

The results show good dispersibility in the MNS test for the most weathered emulsion (Position 3)
at DER of I :25 and above. At ratios under 1:50 the efficiency in the MNS test were gradually
decreasing. The highly weathered slick sampled in position 3 had a documented thickness of up to
4 mm. A dosage of 5 USGPA would correspond to a dispersantlemulsion-ratio of 1:800 for a slick
with this thickness (Table 5.1). According to the test results, this is a too low dosage to disperse
the emulsion. A dispersantlemulsion-ratio above I :50 is recommended as the minimum dosage for
heavily weathered emulsions such as the sample from position 3. According to Table 5.1 a
minimum dosage of 25 USGPA is required to efficiently disperse heavily weathered emulsion
similar to the tested emulsion from position 3.
The slick should be monitored after the dispersant treatment, and if emulsion is still on the surface
are-treatment of the slick should be considered in order to achieve sufficient dosage.
5.3 Sea state dependency

Tests were conducted with the high energy MNS test and with the low energy IFP test. The MNS
is thought to be representative for energy at high/medium sea states with presence of breaking
waves (typically >5m1s). The IFP test is representative to calmer sea states with no breaking
waves. The comparative tests were carried out on all the sampled emulsions and with a
dispersantlemulsion-rate of 1:25. At this dosage all emulsions dispersed readily in the MNS test.
The dispersibility was slightly reduced in the IFP test for the moderately weathered emulsions
from position 2 and 4, while dispersibility was significantly reduced for the heavily weathered
sample from position 3. This means that the emulsions are dispersible given sufficient wave
energy. In calm sea conditions, introduction of additional mixing-energy/turbulence 0.5-1 hour
after dispersant treatment, could be a rational operational strategy. Such mixing energy could be
supplied to the treated slick e.g. by prop-washing or by spraying the slick with the vessels FI-FI
system.
5.4 Viscosity limit for use of dispersants

As an emulsion weather on the sea surface the physical properties will change, and the
dispersibility will gradually decrease. The change in physical properties and thus the changes in
dispersibility are highly dependent on the wind/wave conditions. In the systematic weathering
studies performed in general at SINTEF, dispersant effectiveness is linked to the viscosity of the
emulsion. The viscosity is predicted by use of the SINTEF Oil Weathering Model (Daling and
Stn.::Jm, 1999) and a time window for effective use of dispersants can be estimated. The weathering
properties of the DWH oil are not studied and predictions of the change in physical properties can
not be done. A defininite time window for use of dispersants can therefore not be established. In
this study only the relationship between dispersibility and viscosity has been established.
The most weathered sample tested in this study had a viscosity of 7200 mPas after an estimated
weathering time of 4-5 days on the sea surface under relative calm weather conditions. This
emulsion still showed good dispersibility in the high energy MNS test at a dispersantlemulsionratio of 1:25. In lack of more viscous emulsions the emulsion from position 3 is tested at lower
temperatures to gain higher viscosities. The tests indicate that at a dispersant/emulsion-ratio of
1:25 the dispersibility will be reduced at a viscosity of 10000 mPas. Poor dispersibility will occur
as the emulsion reaches a viscosity of approximately 25000mPas.
009816
G)SINTEF
]7
6 References
Bocard C. Castaing, C. G. and Gatillier, C. 1984: "Chemical oil dispersion in trials at sea and in
laboratory tests". In: Oil Spill Dispersants, ASTM STP 840 (T.E. Allen ed.) Philadelphia,
USA, pp 125- 142
Daling, P.S., T. Stram, 1999. Weathering of Oils at Sea: ModellField Data Comparisons. Spill
Science and Technology Bulletin, Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 63-74, 1999
Leirvik,F., Daiing,P.S.,Trudel,K.,Parschal,B.20 1O. "Cruise report - Assessment of dispersibility
ofDWH oil at different stages of weathering"
Mackay, D.and Szeto, F. 1980. Effectiveness of oil spill dispersants - development of a
laboratory method and results for selected commercial products. Institute of Environmental
Studies, University of Toronto, Publ. no. EE-16.
009817
Re: Oil Budget Tool AccolIDts
Subject: Re: Oif Budget Tool Accounts

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 201005:15:32 -0400
CC: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, shpeterson@usgs.gov
Si,
I apologize but our NRDA group would also like access to the tool. It is quite popular. Here is their information.
Mark
My USGS wrote:
Mark
All the accounts have been created and they were placed in the OilBudgeCReaders group. Each user will receive an e-mail
welcoming them and providing their login credentials.
Let me know if you need anything else.

shpeterson@usgs.gov
"Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Milfer@noaa.qov>
To:
I;\t USGS <myusgs@usgs.QOIP
cc:
Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gOIP
Subject:
0711512010 03:09 PM
Here it is.
Mark
My USGS wrote:
Mark
First Name
Last Name
e-mail address
Thank you
II ----------------------------! Sibert (Si) Peterson
i US Geological Survey
I Regional Geospatiallnformation Office
I shpeterson@usgs.gov
I
lof2
B""'''_.'''''''''~'
To:
Mark Miler <mark.w.miUer@noaa.gov>
9/27/20102:12 PM
009818
Re: Oil Budget Tool AccOImts
cc:
"Administrator (USGS-JIRA)" <myusgs@usgs.gov>
Subject:
071141201006:02 PM
No problem. You can reply all t"o this email (including the CC to rr.vusgs@usas.govl with full nameS and email addresses. E:ach
person will get a separate email with their account information.
We discussed this before you got on the call, but the system will be down from 0700-1900 on Sunday, July 25 for a
a new data center we have had in the works. we offered to spin up a contingency plan for alternate access during
CDR O'Srien felt that the downtime would not be a problem. Let us know if you feel different.
<. {(
----<. i i ----<.
Sky Sristol
({
sbris~ol@usq$.qOV
( (
On Jul 14, 2010, at 5: 19 PM, Mark Miller wrote:

> Sky,
>
> r would like to get read access accounts for'our field sses. Wha~ is the best format for me to present the list of names and
emails Ithere are about 20 of them).

Mark
You will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out n9w with the changes we discussed this afternoon:
- New Inland
variable available through Daily Variables for input and a cumulative total shown in the executive
summary for reporting.
added a note about this variable that comes up in the report. If you all ever want to change any of the
notes, please let uS know and we'll walk you through how to do that on your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a
group that allows You to edit the various annotations available through the application and in the reports.
- E:xport to Excel feature was added to the Daily Variables page.

discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get from Jaqul Michel and that particular group.
on anything additional in the way of inland recovery data availability to come to uS from LT McElroy or other USCG
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving the application. In particular, let us know
i f the new Inland Recovery
report component looks okay.
Than k you.
<.
(I
----<.
( ----<. ((
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.oov
(I (<
NOAA Access to Oil Budget Tool kvc forARD.xlsx
20f2
C
T
application/vnd.openxmlformatsontent- ype:
9/27/20102:12 PM
009819

First Name
Troy
Rob
Tom
Lisa
Dan
Kevin
Brendan
Ian
Kate
Tom
Tony
Robert
Last Name
Baker
Ricker
Brosnan
DiPinto
Hahn
Kirsch
Bray
Zelo
Clark
Moore
Penn
Haddad
Category
Email
troy.baker
Reader
rob.ricker
Reader
tom.brosnan Reader
lisa.dipinto Reader
daniel.hahn Reader
kevin.kirsch Reader
brendan.bray Reader
ian.zelo
Reader
kate.clark
Reader
tom.moore Reader
tony.penn
Reader
robert.hadda( Reader
009820
AlITO: CN=Sibert H PetersonlOU=RGIO/OU=USGS/O=DOI is out 0 ...
Subject: AUTO: CN=Sibert H Peterson/OU=RGIO/OU=USGS/O=DOI is out of the office.

(returning 07/19/201006:00 AM)
From: Sibert H Peterson <shpeterson@usgs.gov>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 201003:18:38 -0600
I am out of the office from 07/15/2010 05:00 PM until 07/19/2010 06:00 AM.
I will
to your message when I return. If you need assistance
during this time please contact Kit Fuller at
Note: This is an automated response to your message liRe: Oil Budget Tool
Accounts" sent on 07/17/2010 03:15:32.
This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.
1 of I
9/27/20102:12 PM
Re: Oil Budget Tool Accomts
009821
Subject: Re: Oil Budget Tool Accounts

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:17:20 -0600
CC: My USGS <myusgs@usgs.gov>, shpeterson@usgs.gov
Don't apologize. We are happy the tool is being used. The NRDA group has been added
with reader access to the tool. They should have all received their passwords by now.
<.(<----<.----<.(<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
<.----<.----<.(<
On Ju117, 2010, at 3:15AM, Mark Miller wrote:
Si,
I apologize but our NRDA group would also like access to the tool. It is quite popular.
Here is their information.
Mark
My USGS wrote:
I
Mark
1 All the accounts have been created and they were placed in the OilBudget_Readers group. Each
I
user will receive an e-mail welcoming them and providing their login credentials.
Let me know if you need anything else.

"Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
07/15/201003:09 PM
To:
My usGS <myusgs@usgs.gov>
cc:
Subject:
Here 'it is.

Mark
lof3
9/27/20102:12 PM
Re: Oil Budget Tool
009822
ACCOW1ts
My USGS wrote:
Mark
First Name
Last Name
e-mail address
Thank you

To:
Mark Miler <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
cc:
"Administrator (USGS-JIRA)" <mvusgs@usgs.gov>
Subject:
Re: Oil BuclgetTool- updated
07114/2010 06:02 PM
No problem. You can reply all to this email (including the CC to myusqs@usgs.gov) with full
names and email addresses. Each person will get a separate email with their account information.
Ii
I1
Ii
We discussed this before you got on the call, but the system will be down from 0700-1900 on
Sunday, July 25 for a planned move to a new data center we have had in the works. We offered to
spin up a contingency plan for alternate access during.that time, but CDR O'Brien felt that the
downtime would not be a problem. Let us know if you feel different.
<.
(<----<.
(<----<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
! <. (<----<. ----<. (
j On
I~
Jul 14, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Mark Miller wrote:

Sky,
> I would like to get read access accounts for
ou~ field SSCs. What is the best format for me to

present the list of names and emails (there are about 20 of them).
>
> Mark
>
You will see a new version of the Oil Budget Tool out now with the changes we discussed this
afternoon:
- New Inland Recovery variable available through Daily Variables for input and a cumulative
total shown in the executive summary for reporting. I added a note about this variable that
comes up in the report. If you all ever want to change any of the notes, please let us know and
we'll walk you through how to do that on your end. CDR O'Brien and LT McElroy are currently in a
2of3
9/27/20102:12 PM
Re: Oil Budget Tool AccOI.mts
009823
group that allows you to edit the various annotations available through the application and in
the reports.
As we discussed, we'll continue tracking down any additional data we can get from Jaqui
Michel and that particular group. We'll rely on anything additional in the way of inland
recovery data availability to come to us from LT McElroy or other USCG personnel.
Please continue to provide any feedback on improving> the application. In particular, let us
know if the new Inland Recovery report component looks okay.
Thank you.
<. ( ((<<<----<. (( ----<. ( (
Sky Bristol
Ii
<. ((----<. ((----<. (
I
I
i
I
t!
I
I
iJ
30f3
<NOAA Access to Oil Budget Tool_kvc_forARD.xlsx>
I
I
II
1
I
j
I
I!
9/27/20102:12 PM
RE: Kudos from CRS on Qs
009824
Subject: RE: Kudos 'from CRS on Qs

Date: Sat, 17 JIJI 201006:40:34 -0700
To: "Offutt, Todd CDR" <Todd.J.Offutt@uscg.mil>
CC: HQS-OG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP <NIC-HQIASG@uscg.mil>
Good Stuff, Todd! Thanks on behalf of the IASG Team.
NIC-IASG

To: Gautier, Peter CAPT
Cc: Wiggins, Chani; Kayyem, Juliette; Dietch, Sarah: Rooke, Connie: Nauta, David
MEC; Neffenger, Peter RDML: 'Solange.O.Hubble@uscg.dhs.qov': Bowman, Russell E
LCDR: Kiefer, Kevin CAPT; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR; Kuebler, Charles LCDR; Grawe,
William: Sturm, Francis; Brown, Baron CDR: Lowe, Steve CDR: O'Brien, Sean CDR:
Emerick, Thomas CDR: Watson, Elizabeth LCDRj Kuebler, Charles LCDRj Moland, Mark
CDR
Subject: Kudos from CRS on Qs
Capt-Sir,
The following kudos is forwarded wi appreciation for the support & guidance of
many, including those within the NIC Staff, the UAC and forward-deployed IGAs who
help NIC LegAffairs "answer the mail" day-in and day-out.
Among these were our awesome ring leaders within the Interagency Solutions Group,
critical resources, Sit Unit/RFI desk, legal beagles, State Dept, other Federal
agencies, and many more.
As you know, the Congressional Research Service (cited below) is a well-respected
Hill authority. The Qs specifically concern CWA, NCP, etc., but are just the
latest.
To-date, NIC Staff have responded to more than 400 Congressional questions (Q&As)
& post-hearing questions for the record (QFRs), of which: 36% of all assigned
Q&As were due same day; 31% within 24 hours; and 9.8% within 48 hours.
Viewed another waYt -77% of all Qs were due out of the NIC Staff within 48 hours
of tasking. Thanks to all! Vir TJO
CDR Todd Offutt
NIC-DC Intergov't & Legislative Affairs
-----Original Message----From: Morrison, Stephanie LCDR

Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:09 AM
To: Pennella, Patrick LTJG
Cc: Jones, Melinda: Mason, Robert
Subject: RE: Delivery (Q&A 3623-3626: DECANTING)
Patrick, good morning, just thought I'd pass along feedback from the
lof4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009825
Congressional Research Center:

"An excellent response---well written and concise. Thanks for your assistance."
Thanks!
Respectfully,
-Steph
(CG House Liaison's Office)
-----Original Message----From: Pennella, Patrick LTJG
To: Morrison, Stephanie LCDR
Cc: Dickey, Laura CDR: Ensley, Kristopher LT; Jones, Melinda; Krolman, Walter LTi
Mackenzie, Nathan LT; Mason, Robert; McLaughlin, Daniel CDRi Morgan, Joe LCDR;
Offutt, Todd CDR; Pennella, Patrick LTJG; Penoyer, Brian CDRi Schultz, Karl RDML;
Schuster, Ronald CDR; Shuler, Thomas LCDR; Warren, Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele
Subject: Delivery (Q&A 3623-3626: DECANTING)
LCDR Morrison,
Below is the answer to all of your questions.
which goes with all four Q&As.
There is one attachment,
QUESTION: Can oil skimmers discharge water back into the Gulf after it has been
separated from oil?
ANSWER:
Yes, please see attached document.
====================================
QUESTION: Do the skimmers need a Clean Water Act permit to do this?

this requirement been waived by the On-Scene Commander?
If so, has
ANSWER: Skimmers do not need a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit to conduct decanting
operations. The CWA, through the National Contingency Plan, grants the Federal
On-Scene Coordinator 1FOSC) broad authority to direct appropriate response
actions (to include decanting operations) in responding to the Deepwater Horizon
of national significance (40 CFR 300.310, 300.322). Moreover, water
y laws have provisions or permit provisions through Federal regulations
that ensure our laws do not interfere with responding to a pollution incident
such as this. For example, a vessel working on the Deepwater Horizon response in
compliance with the instructions of the FOSC is exempt from EPA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and does not require a permit for
discharges of decanted oil-water mix associated with the oil spill response (40
CFR 122.3(d)}. Similarly, the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, as amended (commonly referred to as MARPOL) provides an
exemption for discharges of oil that would otherwise be prohibited where, among
other things, the discharge is in response to and mitigating a pollution incident
such as this (MARPOL Annex I, Regulation 4.3).
QUESTION: Is there any documentation (e.g., memoranda or directives) authorizing
such activity or discussing this issue/question?
ANSWER:
Decanting is authorized in writing by either the Federal On-Scene
Coordinator (FOSC) or a designated FOSC Representative to conduct such activity.
All authorization letters are on file at the Unified Area Command in New
Orleans. An example is attached.
====================================
QUESTION: If skimmers are allowed to discharge separated/decanted water back

into the Gulf, are there any guidelines or thresholds (i.e. concentrations of
oil) attached to this aotivity?
2of4
9/27/20102: 12 PM
RE: Kudos from eRS on Qs
009826
ANSWER:
The National Contingency Plan establishes the parameters to follow in a
response action, and grants the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) broad
authority to direct appropriate response actions (to include decanting
operations) in responding to the Deepwater Horizon
of national
ficance
(40 CFR 300.310, 300.322).
SimilarlYI the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended (commonly referred to as MARPOL)
provides an exemption for discharges of oil that would otherwise be prohibited
where, among other things, the discharge is in response to and mitigating a
pollution incident such the
Horizon incident (MARPOL Annex I,
Regulation 4.3). The FOSC for the Deepwater Horizon
of National
Significance is guided by the Regional Contingency Plan, also known as the "One
Gulf Plan," when approving decanting operations for this spill response.
The
plan provides that the criteria to be addressed when approving decanting
operations in response to a spill include: a review of the availability of
additional storage for recovered water, the resources at risk, and the
of the proposed discharge
(One Gulf Plan P. 3340.2)
The FOSC also considers
other incident specific considerations, such as for this spill, the size and
scope of the spill and response
ions.
-----Original Message----From: Pennella, Patrick LTJG

Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:54 PM
To: Moland, Mark CDRi Offutt, Todd CDR; Watson, Elizabeth LCDR
Cc; Dickey, Laura CDR; Ensley, Kristopher LT; Jones, Melinda; Langum, Scott CDRi
Mackenzie, Nathan LT; Mason, Robert; McLaughlin I Daniel CDR: Morrison, Stephanie
LCDR; Pennella, Patrick LTJG; Warren, Robert CDR; Zauche, Michele; HQS-DG-lst-CGDCO-A-SP; Bouziane, Michele LCDR; Goad, Michael; Reese, Tamekia; Smith, Beverly;
Venckus, Steve; hqs-dg-lst-dcms-82; Cashin, Charles CAPT: Grawe, William; Guinee,
Paul; Smith, Glynn CDR: Thurber, Margaret; Thuring, Allen; HQS-DG-lst-CG-821;
HQS-DG-Ist-CG-822; Amidon, Dale; Armstrong l Richard LT; Bromell, Robert; Covert,
Justin LT; Cuesta, Carlos; Flynn, Patrick CAPT; Hallock, Johnene LT; Harker,
Thomas CDR; Hellberg, Jonathan LCDR: Hudson, Samuel LT; Imahori, John CDR;
Keffer, Benjamin LTi Lomba, Manuel LCDR; Mohr, Kevin CDR; Petty, Lee CDR;
Rodriguez, Paul LCDR; Thompson, Robert CAPT; Warney, Maple; Yacobi, James; Coe,
Shannah CTR; Cunningham, Matthew CTR; Ladd, Pamela; Manzi, Kathryn; Martyn, David
CTR; McDaniel, Jack CTR; Quigley, William CTR; Smith, Derek LCDR; Carpenter,
Sandra; Celestin, Peggy; Vaughn, Roger; St. John, Jordan; Wright, Howard CDR;
Didominicus, Lou; Re, Joseph CAPT; Derian, Matthew LT; Naff, Beth LCDR; Palermo,
Andrea CDR; Parker, Frank CAPT; CampI Claudia CDR; Thomas, Feba; Medina, Lizette;
Montgomery, Patrick LT; Thompson, Matthew LCDR
Subject: ROUTINE ACTION (NIC) 3623-3626
Sirs/Ma'am,
Jonathan Ramseur of the Congressional Research Service has requested a
response to the below question.
TIMELINE: No later than 1400, 13 JULY
BACKGROUND; Jonathan Ramseur has received several Congressional requests in
recent days regarding oil skimming and decanting operations. Attached is the
Morgan City ACP, which indicates that the USCG may authoriZe the discharge of
separated/decanted water back into the Gulf. The "One Gulf" plan contains similar
language.
ASSIGNMENTS:
(NIC) Q&A *3623: Can oil skimmers discharge water back into the Gulf after it
30f4
9/27/20102:12 PM
009827
has been separated from oil?

(NIC) Q&A #3624: Do the skimmers need a Cl~an Water Act permit to do this?
so, has this requirement been waived by the On-Scene Commander?
If
(NIC) Q&A #3625: Is there any documentation (e.g., memoranda or directives)

authorizing such activity or discussing this issue/question?
(NIC) Q&A #3626: If skimmers are allowed to discharge separated/decanted water
back into the Gulf, are there any guidelines or thresholds (i.e. concentrations
of oil) attached to this activity?
\QIndex.2010.xlsm>
v/r,
LTJG Patrick R. Pennella
Office of Budget & Programs (CG-82)
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
Patrick.R.Pennella@uscg.mil
4of4
9/27/2010 2: 12 PM
Re: Draft of the new Long Term Modeling Doc
009828
Subject: Re: Draft of the new Long Term Modeling Doc

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:20:11 -0400
CC: Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, Chris Barker
<Chris. Barker@noaa.gov>, Glen Watabayashi <Glen. Watabayashi@noaa.gov>, Jerry Galt
@genwest.com>, Heather Lilly <Heather.Lilly@noaa.gov>
Thanks, everyone, for jumping through your butts one more time for NOAA leadership. If
we can get this done over the weekend, it will be very useful.
Bill
Mark Miller wrote:
I
ff Bill,
,
!
I I understand that there was supposed to be only one graphic in the original document
I but both are displayed on the website so thought we would maintain consistency. Also
I am not clear how the final document approval went after OMB selected the big red
I blob graphic. I think it better to have both really. We mention map grids in the
1 document and describe the level of concern based on map grid.
I can go with this ..

The Oil Budget tool does use the MC252 and not BP in its title on the webpage.
OK, then we should use it too. I think it's DOC that insists on the other name. Not sure
where that is coming from but it's a strongly held position at that level.
ti
! I agree we should add a comment that gives the 30 day time frame for most shoreline
1 threats.
Sounds good.
I Heather and Chris - as soon as you have the next graphics (both red blob and
I shoreline impact) please send
lof3
it around to the review group so we can look at it.
9/27/20102: 12 PM
009829
Mark ! My comments are added to the attached copy. Some of the stuff that OMB
I added last time I took out. Some of the redundancy I left in because OMB liked it
repeated last time.
t The deal on the 2 figures is that we could not decide which one to use (I didn't
i care - but I did not prefer using both). I guess the safe way to go is to use both
j figures again. But if we do so, they have to be consistent.
I l'd like to take another look if there is time when it's all put together.
I
I Thanks again.
Bill
I, Mark Miller wrote:
I
~
Chris and Heather-
Excellent job. Here is my slightly commented copy.

Chris and JerryWhen you have a chance to refine the Shoreline Impact graphic please go
ahead and insert it into the document. I don't know how much "smoothing"
, is appropriate but the coast line of TX seems quite interesting with short
; segments with different probabilities.
I
I
I
I
II
I.'
Dave and Bill,

Who should look at the next version prior to sending it to leadership?
Mark
I II
~
I
i
!
I
I
II
II
. I
I
I
II
I William G. Conner, Ph.D.

I NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
; !

200
9/27/2010 2:12 PM
Re: Draft of the new Long Tenn Modeling Doc
30f3
009830
9/27/20102: 12 PM
009831
Subject: Re: Draft of the new Long Term Modeling Doc

From: Christopher Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul2010 11:09:39 -0700
CC: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Heather Lilly <Heather.Lilly@noaa.gov>
everyone, for jumping through your butts
i Thanks,
interesting image ...

lone more time for NOAA leadership.
be very useful.
I will
If we can get this done over the weekend, it
I'm waiting for Lextor to come in and tweak the map a bit, and then I think we'll
have it.
-Chris
Bill
'Mark Miller wrote:
I
,
r
Bill,
,I
i
i I understand that there was supposed to be only one graphic in the original
document but both are displayed on the website so thought we would maintain
consistency. Also am not clear how the final document approval went after OMB
selected the big red blob graphic. I think it better to have both really. We
, j mention map grids in the document and describe the level of concern based on
;Imap grid.
j I can go with this.
Ii The
Oil Budget tool does use the MC252 and not SP in its title on the webpage.
I think it's DOC that insists on the other
i name. Not sure where that is coming from but it's a strongly held position at
! that level.
! OK, then we should use it too.
,11!
I I I agree we should add

! I shoreline threats.
! Sounds
II I
a comment that
I. We are on the hook to get this to senior management today.
I!
!I
II
I
II
I also feel comfortable with you going through the comments and adding them in
or responding to the commenter for the attached document. Any confusion or
1 controversy talk to the person directly.
I'
II
I!I
good.
II
1i
the 30 day time frame for most
Heather and Chris - as soon as you have the next graphics (both red blob and
shoreline impact) please send it around to the review group so we can look at
Ii ~' t .
[
j
II
,
!I
Ii
P
I
I
Mark
'.' william. conner wrote:

I
10f2
Mark -
9/27/2010 2:12 PM
Re: Draft of the new Long Tenn Modeling Doc
009832
I
My comments are added to the attached copy. Some of the stuff that OMB
added last time I took out. Some of the redundancy I left in because OMB
liked it repeated last time.
The deal on the 2 figures is that we could not decide which one to use (I
didn't care - but I did not prefer using both). I guess the safe way to go
is to use both figures again. But if we do so, they have to be consistent.
I'd like to take another look if there is time when it's all put together.
Thanks again.
,!1
I
!
. I
Ii
Bill
i
!
Mark Miller wrote:

, Chris and Heather -
. !
Excellent job. Here is my slightly commented copy:
Chris and Jerry -
When you have a chance to refine the Shoreline Impact graphic please go
ahead and insert it into the document. I don't know how much "smoothing"
is appropriate but the coast line of TX seems quite interesting with short
segments with different probabilities.
I
j
Dave and Bill,

Who should look at the next version prior to sending it to leadership?
i'
II
I
Mark


Oceanographer
NOAA/NOS/OR&R
(206)
Seattle, WA 98115
20f2
voice
fax
main reception
9/27/20102:12 PM
Re: Shoreline Threat after Well Control
009833
Subject: Re: Shoreline Threat after Well Control

Date: Sun, 18 Jul2010 10:20:28 -0700
cc: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>, "william.conner"
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Chris Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>, Jerry Galt
@genwest.com>
I think a missing ingredient here is not if oil will be coming onto the beaches,
but how much oil and where.
How will it effect the environment and economy and
what type of cleanup and response will it require? This is what the background
tarball analysis is expected to answer. There will always be oil in the Gulf of
Mexico generating tarballs because of all the natural seeps and ship traffic. But
how will the remaining Deepwater Horizon oil compare to the background oil over
time is the question.
We know that off Alabama where shells collect, they were getting dime sized
tarballs - less than one every meter of beach toward the end of last week. So far
all the 130+ tarballs fingerprinted from SE Florida have not matched D.H. oil.
Should more of the D.H. oil come ashore, how will it compare to what's already
coming ashore?
The Loop Current is in it's "normal" cycle. The pinching off and regrowth of the
Loop Current occurs at least once every year. So it is in it's "normal" cycle.
Mark Miller wrote:

I Steve,
~
(Thanks for your timely and detailed review. I have incorporated your comments as
'I well as I COUld.
Chris Barker may have better, more informed response to your
questions/comments but here is some discussion points:
11. The 91 scenarios are the subset of the 15 year history that we used for the
report. We tried to match the conditions as closely as possible to
!present Loop Current status. We run the model for 60 days and within that time
frame a small number of scenarios (approximately 15%) included the reattachment
of the eddy and transport of oil to the Florida Straits. The actual threat to
South Florida has decreased from 80% to 10% so I expect those folks to be
i dancing in the streets. We also say that we will continue to update the report
leaving the door open to refine our answers,later.
i original
I
II
12.
I,.
We have space on the website that we can add details of the 91 runs if people
think it necessary. I would be concerned though that it would generate way more
questions than it answers.
agree
I 3.theWesuballsurface
I
lof2
that we need better, more detailed analysis and presentation of

oil. I just don't think we are there yet. Chris and Jerry might
have better insight on that. People are used to our tactical models addressing
the surface expression of the spill and the last report did so I am not sure
that this would cause undo consternation. I do think this should be on the near
term track to get a simialr type report generated.
9/27/20102:12 PM
009834
4. I like adding the note that oil transport would require the Loop Current to
return to previous state. Chris - is the previous condition its "normal" state?
5. I think we should use "no more significant oil release" as part of the
initialization of the runs. Even if the TopCap does not allow closing in the
well BP has the capacity to collect close to 100% of the release unless a
hurricane arrives. Again we can update the
if conditions are different.
6. The 481,000 bbls come from the official Oil Budget tool. Yes I agree that it
suggests an accuracy that does not exist but it is defensible. This is the
calculation based on the low well flow (35,000 bbls/day) estimate. The high flow
estimate seemed unrealistic.
7. We have wrestled with the "one scenario actually occurs" and "reality" since
the beginning. I tend to be very conservative in dealing with a document that is 1
heading back to OMB. I prefer to stay with what has been cleared in the past and 1
minimize the chance of slowing down the approval process.
I
i
Steve Murawski wrote:
Mark,
I Bill,
JA few general and specific comments. Happy to discuss. Many questions

I already starting about how many days from now until we will see no more
! surface oil. I recall our conversation Bill at the Rusty Pellicano
I-Steve
20f2
I
I
I'
II
9/27/20102:12 PM
009835

From: Christopher Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:41:29 -0700
CC: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>, "william.conner"
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Glen Watabayashi <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>, Jerry
Galt
@genwest.com>
Thanks Mark.
A few additional clarifications:
Mark Miller wrote:
The 91 scenarios are the subset of the 15 year history that we used for the
I original report. We tried to match the conditions as closely as possible to
I present Loop Current status. We run the model for 60 days and within that time
I frame a small number of scenarios (approximately 15%) included the reattachment
i of the eddy and transport of oil to the Florida Straits.
! 1.
Actually it doesn't necessarily take a re-attachment to get oil to the Florida

Straits, with out re-attachment, you won't get the direct shot, but there can
still be circuitous routes through the eddies that can bring oil there.
However, Bob Leben, on who's analysis we derived the subset, does think there is
still a chance of re-attachment (or did 5 days ago)
2. We have space on the website that we can add details of the 91 runs if people
think it necessary.
I am intending to do that -- if nothing else, I'd like to give Bob Leyben's group
credit for their work somehow.
3. We all agree that we need better, more detailed analysis and presentation of
the sub surface oil. I just don't think we are there yet.
One of the tricks here is that we simply don't have the same kind of models
available for the cu~rents at depth. We also don't have as robust a capabi
modeling the subsurface oil, even if we had the current models.
for
I think the GFDL report is as good as it

now -- and it's pretty good. It's
not a forecast, or a hindcast, but it is "representative" scenario -- i think it
scales the problem well.
14.
I like adding the note that oil transport would require the Loop Current to
I return to previous state. Chris - is the previous condition its "normal" state?
Well, sort of -- it' more common for it to be connected to than not -- but it's
quite normal for eddy separation to occur. Bob Leyben's group made a nice movie of
the loop current over a number of years -- maybe we should put that on the web
site -- it really makes it clear how much it moves around -- Leo Oey called is the
"Loop Current Dance". Bob Weisberg has a similar movie, too.
15.
I think we should use "no more significant oil release" as part of the
initialization of the runs. Even if the TopCap does not allo~ closing in the
well BP has the capacity to collect close to 100% of the release unless a
Ihurricane arrives. Again we can update the report if conditions are different.
Yes, if it really runs free again, we'll want to re-do -- but we're sure hoping
t of2
9/27/20102:12 PM
009836
that isn't the case.
16.
The 481,000 bbls come from the official Oil Budget tool. Yes I agree that it
1 suggests an accuracy that does not exist
True - I'd rather a round number, but that's the number that the calculator had
that day.
I This
I The
is the calculation based on the low well flow (35,000 bbls!day) estimate.
high flow estimate seemed unrealistic.
and not because that high a flow is unrealistic -- I don't know about that, but
that calculator doesn't take into account any of the processes that take
after the initial few days or so -- beaching, bio-degradation, etc. What we know
is that there just isn't much surface expression of oil out there compared to
what's been released. There may well be a lot of tarball fields that we can't see,
but the plankton tow survey's have not found much, and while we are getting a fair
bit of tarball beaching, it's still not that huge. Given the amount of tarballs
beaching in Alabama, it's hard to imagine there's enough floating oil to get major
hits farther away -- west Texas or southern Florida.
! 7.
! the
We have wrestled with the "one scenario actually occurs" and "reality" since
beginning.
Yes, this is a hard one to put in a single phrase. Only one scenario will occur -it won't necessarily look like one of the ones modeled, but it still is only one,
and thus can't send most of the oil to both Texas and Florida, for example.
Many questions already starting about how many days from now until we
will see no more surface oil.
I expect the visible surface expression will go away fast. This modeling shows
local beaching for up to 30 days or so, and long distance up to 60days, but that
doesn't mean that we'll be able to see it on the surface for long -- this sheen
from this oil is disappearing pretty fast.
-Chris

Oceanographer
(206) 526-6959
NOAA!NOS!OR&R
(206) 526-6329
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 526-6317
2of2
voice
fax
main reception
9/27/20102:12 PM
009837

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:23:28 -0700
On 7/18/10 12:09 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
; I need one sentence on the 60 day run versus the 120 day run and my brain is
: frozen.
hrom.
The big difference is that in the initial analysis, we did a 90 day release, then
another 30 days beyond that.
In this case, we're didn't release any additional oil, so we've actualy done twice
as much. The answer is in teh doc already - maybe we need to highlight or move it:
unf?
most of the shoreline impacts will have occurred within 30 days of when the well
has been brought under control. However, the oil that makes it as far as the
Florida Straits and west Texas arrives between 30 and 60 days after the end of the
release
nnlf
Maybe add something like:

nnn
After 60 days, most of the floating oil will be beached or in widely scattered,
and hard to detect, tarballs in the Loop Current eddies and the Gulf stream,
similar to background levels.
rru,'
Should we get a conference call or something together on this?

-CHB
i
i
II
Mark
Christopher Barker wrote:

Thanks Mark.
,1.
!, A few additional clarifications:
Mark Miller wrote:

1. The 91 scenarios are the subset of the 15 year history that we used for
the original report. We tried to match the conditions as closely as possible
,\1 to present Loop Current status. We run the model for 60 days and within that
1 time frame a small number of scenarios (approximately 15%) included the
reattachment of the eddy and transport of oil to the Florida Straits.
II Actually
Straits,
I still be
II
!
it doesn't necessarily take a re-attachment to get oil to the Florida

with out re-attachment, you won't get the direct shot, but there can
circuitous routes through the eddies that can bring oil there.
i
t". However r Bob Leben, on who's analysis we derived the subset r does think there
Ii is still a chance of re-attachment (or did 5 days ago)
II
lof3
2. We have space on the website that we can add details of the 91 runs i f
!!
9/27/20102:12 PM
009838
II people think it necessary.

!I f I am intending to do that --
if nothing else, I'd like to give Bob Leyben's

J I group credit for their work somehow.
j
!
3. We all agree that we need better, more detailed analysis and presentation
of the sub surface oil. I just don't think we are there yet.
II
1:;,
,I,
'I. '1'
I lone
of the tricks here is that we simply don't have the same kind of models
II
II available
for the currents at depth. We also don't have as robust a capability 1.'1
for modeling the subsurface oil, even if we had the current models.
II I
think the GFDL report is as good as it gets

'Ii. think
It's not a forecast, or a hindcast, but it is
it scales the problem well.
!I
now -- and it's pretty good.

"representative" scenario -- i
1
! I
~I
Ii 4. I like adding the note that oil transport would require the Loop Current
II' to return to previous state. Chris - is the previous condition its "normal"
d state?
!I
II ;,'.
jl
II,'
II
!I
II!
II
Well, sort of -- it' more common for it to be connected to than not -- but
it's quite normal for eddy separation to occur. Bob Leyben's group made a nice
: movie of the loop current over a number of years -- maybe we should put that
1 on the web site -- it really makes it clear how much it moves around -- Leo
Oey called is the "Loop Current Dance". Bob Weisberg has a similar movie, too.
II
II
11
5. I think we should use "no more significant oil release" as part of the
111,1
i I. initialization of the runs. Even if the TopCap does not allow closing in the
I I well BP has the capacity to collect close to 100% of the release unless a
I
IIi; hurricane arrives. Again we can update the report if conditions are
I
!, Ii different.
..
,. II
II
; ,
I
i
11
;1
Yes, if it really runs free again, we'll want to re-do -- but we're sure
"i.
I! hoping that isn't the case.
II
!! I;
6. The 481,000 bbls come from the official Oil Budget tool. Yes I agree that
t i t suggests an accuracy that does not exist
11
i! i True - I d rather a round number but that's the number that the calculator
I
i Ii
had that day.
Ii
,j
Ii.
!
I!
:!
I'!
. i
II
This is the calculation based on the low well flow (35,000 bbls/day)
estimate. The high flow estimate seemed unrealistic.
Ii
11
and not because that high a flow is unrealistic -- I don't know about that,
but that calculator doesn't take into account any of the processes that take
, place after the initial few days or so -- beaching, bio-degradation, etc. What
we know is that there just isn't much surface expression of oil out there
compared to what's been released. There may well be a lot of tarball fields
that we can't see, but the plankton tow survey's have not found much, and
I! while we are getting a fair bit of tarball beaching, it's still not that huge.
Ii Given the amount of tarballs beaching in Alabama, it's hard to imagine there's
enough floating oil to get major hits farther away -- west Texas or southern
l.
Florida.
I
I
I
t.
2of3
7. We have wrestled with the "one scenario actually occurs" and "reality"
since the beginning.
Yes, this is a hard one to put in a single phrase. Only one scenario will
occur -- it won't necessarily look like one of the ones modeled, but it still
9/27/20102:12 PM
Re: Shoreline "Threat after Well Control
009839
I is only one, and thus can't send most of the oil to both Texas and Florida,
11
I for example.
~!
I
III
expect the visible surface expression will go away fast. This modeling shows
'I local beaching for up to 30 days or so, and long distance up to 60days, but
. will see no more surface oil.
II
I f that doesn't mean that we'll be able to see it on the surface for long -- this
sheen from this oil is disappearing pretty fast.
!! I-ChriS
!I
l
30f3
9/27/20102:12 PM
009840

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:57:42 -0700
On 7/18/10 1:50 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
want us to be okay with how we handle Steve Murawski's comments. I think I
either responded to his comments explaining why we can't or shouldn't do what he
I said or I included it (only two were included - Loop Current and tarballs
I edits). Have you had a chance to go through his copy?
yup:
II
I dont know what to do about

"one scenario" vs. "one reality" -- I now what he's
getting at, and he's right, but "one reality" doesn't sound right either. I like
scenrio better than reality, but maybe someone can come up with a better word
--not me right now; I'm drawing a blank
Note that he's a bit confused about the high vs. low flow volume estimate -- but
I'd really rather not use the hig flow number -- there simply is not that much oil
out there.
-Chris
I Chris
Barker wrote:
1'1' On 7/18/10 12:09 PM 1 Mark Miller wrote:
I I need one sentence on the 60 day run versus the 120 day run and my brain is
I i frozen .
!
! l hmm.
!!
i I
I I The big difference is that in the initial analysis, we did a 90 day release,
1 then another 30 days beyond that.
! i
II In
II
this case, we're didn't release any additional oil, so we've actualy done
I I twice as much. The answer is in teh doc already - maybe we need to highlight
or move it:
! I """
II
,lmost of the shoreline impacts will have occurred within 30 days of when the
well has been brought under control. However, the oil that makes it as far as
! I the
Florida Straits and west Texas arrives between 30 and 60 days after the
! I end of the release
~ i
II
II
nlln
11 .fI."
!iAfter 60 days, most of the floating oil will be beached or in widely
scattered, and hard to detect, tarballs in the Loop Current eddies and the
.1 Gulf stream, similar to background levels.
"""
, Should we get a conference call or something together on this?
-CHB
Mark
10f3
9/27/20102:12 PM
I
I
L
j!
~ [
l
i!
II
11
IIi
009841

Thanks Mark.
Mark Miller wrote:
.1. The 91 s
are the subset of the 15 year history that we used
. for the original report. We tried to match the conditions as closely as
possible to present Loop Current status. We run the model for 60 days
and within that time frame a small number of scenarios (approximately
15%) included the reattachment of the eddy and transport of oil to the
Florida Straits.
Actually it doesn't necessarily take a re-attachment to get oil to the
Florida Straits, with out re-attachment, you won't get the direct shot,
but there can still be circuitous routes through the eddies that can bring
oil there.
, JI '
![ Il
I!
However, Bob Leben, on who's analysis we derived the subset, does think
there is still a chance of re-attachment (or did 5 days ago)
it
!!
! I
Ii;
:1"I
2. We have space on the website that we can add details of the 91 runs
if people think it necessary.
I am intending to do that -- if nothing else, I'd like to give Bob
Ii . Leyben's group credit for their work somehow.

3. We all agree that we need better, more detailed analysis and
presentation of the sub surface oil. I just don't think we are there
yet .
One of the tricks here is that we simply don't have the same kind of
models available for the currents at depth. We also don't have as robust a
capability for modeling the subsurface oil, even if we had the current
models.
I think the GFDL report is as good as it gets now -- and it's pretty good .
. It's not a forecast, or a hindcast, but it is "representative" scenario -i think it scales the problem well.
4. I like adding the note that oil transport would require the Loop
Current to return to previous state. Chris - is the previous condition
its "normal" state?
Well, sort of -- it' more common for it to be connected to than not -- but
it's quite normal for eddy separation to occur. Bob Leyben's group made a
nice movie of the loop current over a number of years -- maybe we should
put that on the web site
it really makes it clear how much it moves
around -- Leo Oey called is the "Loop Current Dance". Bob Weisberg has a
similar movie, too.
5. I think we should use "no more significant oil release" as part of
the initialization of the runs. Even if the TopCap does not allow
closing in the well BP has the capacity to collect close to 100% of the
release unless a hurricane arrives. Again we can update the report if
conditions are different.
Yes, if it really runs free again, we'll want to re-do -- but we're sure
hoping that isn't the case.
2of3
-j
I
9/27/20102:12 PM
Re: Shoreline 'Threat after Well Control
009842
6. The 481,000 bbls come from the official Oil Budget tool. Yes I agree
that it suggests an accuracy that does not exist
rather a round number, but that's the number that the
calculator had that day.
This is the calculation based on the low well flow (35,000 bbls/day)
estimate. The high flow estimate seemed unrealistic.
and not because that high a flow is unrealistic -- I don't know about
that, but that calculator doesn't take into account any of the processes
that take place after the initial few days or so -- beaching,
bio-degradation, etc. What we know is that there just isn't much surface
expression of oil out there compared to what's been released. There may
well be a lot of tarball fields that we can't see, but the plankton tow
survey's have not found much, and while we are getting a fair bit of
tarball beaching, it's still not that huge. Given the amount of tarballs
beaching in Alabama, it's hard to imagine there's enough floating oil to
get major hits farther away -- west Texas or southern Florida.
7. We have wrestled with the "one scenario actually occurs" and
"reality" since the beginning.
Yes, this is a hard one to put in a single
Only one scenario will
occur -- it won't necessarily look like one of the ones modeled, but it
still is only one, and thus can't send most of the oil to both Texas and
Florida, for example.
I expect the visible surface expression will go away fast. This modeling
shows local beaching for up to 30 days or so, and long distance up to
60days, but that doesn't mean that we'll be able to see it on the surface
for long -- this sheen from this oil is disappearing pretty fast.
-Chris
30f3
9/27/2010 2:12 PM
009843

From: "william. conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul2010 17:18:37 -0400
CC: Chris Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa,gov>, Glen Watabayashi <Glen,Watabayashi@noaa,gov>
Here are my comments on Steve's conunents.
There is only $0 much that can be done.
Bill
Mark Miller wrote:
A call is a good idea. Maybe after the ops call this afternoon? I would like to have a "final" draft so we could just finish it off so it
does depend on whether we get more comments. Conner asked the leadership to get theirs in by COB today.
The purpose of the one to two sentences is

differences between the last analysis and
to put this in the front of the document {not to replace the later text} to describe the
one. I already have something in concerning the 91 runs.
Mark
Chris Barker wrote:
iOn 7/16/10 12:09 I'M, Mark Miller wrote:
I need one sentence on the 60 day run versus the 120 day run and my brain is frozen.
~ hm.m.
The big difference is that in the initial analysis, we did a 90 day release, then another 30 days beyond that.
In this case, we*re didn't release any additional oil, so we've actualy done twice as much. The answer is in teh doc already - maybe we
need to highlight or move it:
most of the shoreline impacts will have occurred within 30 days of when the well has been brought under control. However, the oil that
makes it as tar as the Florida Straits and west Texas arrives between 30 and 60 days after the end of the release
After 60 days, most of the floating oil will be beached or in widely scattered, and hard to detect, tarballs in the Loop Current eddies
, and the Gulf stream, similar to background levels.
we get a conference call or something together on this?
Mark
Thanks Mark.

Mark Miller wrote:
1. The 91 scenarios
history that we used for the original report. We tried to match the conditions
:IS closely as possible to present Loop
status. We run the model for 60 days and within that time frame a small nW't'lber of
scenarios (apprOXimately 15:;,) included the reattachment of the eddy and transport of oil to the Florida Straits.
Actually it doesn't necessarily take a re-attachment to qet oil to the Florida Straits, with out re-attac:hm.ent t you won't get the
direct shot, but there can still be circuitous routes throuqh the eddies that can bring oil there.
However, Sob Leben, on who's analysis we derived the subset, does think there is still a chance of re-attachment (or did 5 days
ago)
2. We have space on the website that we can add details of the 91 runs if people think i t necessary.
I am intending to do that -- if nothing else, X'd like to give Bob Leybents group credit for their work somehow.
3. We all agree that we need better, more detailed analysis and presentation of the sub surface oil. I just don't think we are
there yet.
One of the triCKS here is that we simply don't have the same kind of models available for the currents at depth. We also don't have
as robust a capability for modeling the subsurface oil, even if we had the current models.
I think the GFDL report is as good as it gets now ~- and it's pretty qood. It's not a forecast, or a hindcast, but it is
"represe.ntative" scenario -- i think it scales the problem well.
4. I like adding the note that oil transport would require the Loop Current to return to previous state. Chr:ls :- is the previous
condition its "normal f' state?
Well, sort of -- it' more coIMton for it to be connected to than not -- but it's quite normal for eddy separation to occur. Bob
Leyben's group made a nice movie of the loop current over a number of years -,. maybe we should put that On the web site -".. it
really makes it clear how much it moves around -- LeO oey called. is the "Loop Current Dance". Bob Weisberg has a similar movie,
too.
S. I think we should use " no more significant oil release" as part of the initialization of the runs. Even if the TopCap does not
allow closing in the well SF has the capacity to collect close to lOO~ of the release unless a hurricane arrives. Again we can
update the report if conditions are different.
Yesl if it really runs free again, we'll want to re-do -- but we1re sure hoping that isn't the case.
;~.
The 481,000 bbl. come frorn the official Oil Budget tool. Yes I agree that i t suggests an accuracy that does not exist
',True - I'd rather a round nwnber, but that's the nwnber that the calculator had that day.
This is the calculation based on the low well flow (35,000 bbls/day) estimate. The high flow estimate seemed unrealistic.
'
I
lof2
and not because that high a flow is unrealistic -- I don't know about that, but that calculator doesn't take into account any of
the p"ocesses that take place after the initial few day. or so -- beaching, bio-degradation, etc. What we know is that there just
9/27/20102: 12 PM
009844
isn't much surface expression of oil out there compared to what's been released. There may well be a lot of tarball fields that we
can't see, but the plankton tow survey's have not foUnd much, and while we are getting a fair bit of tarball beaching, it's still
not that huge. Given the amount of tarballs beaching in Alabama, it's hard to imagine there's enough floating oil to get major hits
farther away -- west Texas or southern Florida.
7. We have wrestled with the "one scenario actually occurs" and l'realityll since the beginning.
Yes, this is a hard one to put in a single phrase. Only one scenario will occur -- it won't necessarily look like one of the ones
modeled, but it still is only one, and thus can't send most of the oil to both Texas and Florida, for example.
the visible surface expression will go away fast. This modeling shows local beachin9 for up to 30 days or so, and long
\Jp to 60days, but that doesn't mean that we'll be able to see: it on the surface for 10ti:9
this sheen from this oil is
disappearing pretty fast.
-Chris

Chief t HAZ~~T Emergency Response Division
Phone: 301-713-3038 1190)
LongTennOilOutlookReport PostControl 07 17 V8-2 sam comments-1.docx
2of2
officedocumenl.wc
9/27/20102:12 PM
009845
Draft - Not for Release July 17,2010

Office of Response and Restoration. Emergency Response Division
Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill Update:

Modeling the Potential Long-term Movement of Oil
Objective
Some overall comments:
This model and the previous one will be confusing to pElogle since our daily Loop Current maps show
a disassociated eddy and very little chance in the next few weeks of it re,-connecting. Thet~fore we
have.a mis-matching between the starting conditions for this "projection" and the actual conditions
as they exist. I appreciate the enormously difficultchallenge in modeling but the public will be
spooked. particularly the public in Florida where the probabilities of oil transport are likely overstated
given the current state ofthe system. Is there any way we could incorporate for example todav's
loop current configuration with the climatological average condition upon which the model was built?
Secondly, is there any modeling capability where we could project the current oceanography forward
say 30 days to see what the probability of re-connecting actually is?
r COllllllent-[~cll'
This is treated in the
I text. All we can do is take a look at that
I treatment again and try to make it as clear as

I possible.
. . = . ;..
'~"'-,.-"~A".,'"'~J.""'/>""~"'yH<~_v~ .......
"1
Second, I think we need some kind of table or more detail regarding what the 91 scenarios compose.
Whatdo they signify {differing starting conditions, different hiStorical patterns in the climatology}?
"
frhlrd. We do not discuss at aU the likely movement of sub-surface oil. Again a difficult observational
challenge but nevertheless an important question. Should we he saying that we will do such
m o d e l i n g . . ..
Thanks for the opportunity to comment
.
."
Steve M.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has updated its original shoreline
threat analysis. The original analysis examined the threat of shoreline oiling after gO-days of
continuing release from the well. The analysis reported here uses a similar modeling approach to
estimate potential threats to U.S. coastlines once the oil spilling from the Deepwater Horizon site has
been secured. Although it is impossible to predict precisely where surface oil will go in the coming
weeks and months, it is possible to analyze where surface oil is most likely to go by using historical
wind and current records.
The previous analysis was released in early July 2010, and can be found here. It will be updated as
necessary.
Major Findings and Implications

The details of the study are outlined in the following pages, but the major findings are represented in
the figures on the next page, and include the following:
..
).,"=,:
Comment [wgc2J, Bushy and Debbie

tried to dO.. this. with Rich Patchen's model.
So far. the ability to look out 3O-daysbas not
: been demonsttDted. That's why we falt bade
On ~ paUMI$ and probability-based
l outcomes.
( COmment {wgc3l, Again.lthink.this is
IlrQted in tbe lext. All we can .00 is IlllIke SIII'
Itbat
m . . . . . . u u m u u um
i
i.
:
.
i
:
! The explanatiOl'l wotks. The scenarios are !

i nmdomly scleQedstart dates from
;
; <I subset ofthebistorical data!bat initiates willi. 1
'I the Loop Currenuystem similar t o i
". current configuration.

"
A~~~""h"~\==~
Comment fwgc4) , We can't so subsurface!

in this document. We can give a little mOfC
'
~phasis to the fact that we are nOldoing
subsurface. We can also say that this is
about sboreline threat and subsurface oil is not
a threat to the shoreline.
----~----------~
009846
The coastlines with the highest probability (41%-100%) of further impact-from the
Mississippi River Delta to the Alabama Coast-have already received oil.
The oil could move as far west as the southern coast of Texas, with the region near the Mexico
border showing a probability of 1%-10% of impact.
The west coast of Florida has a low probability 1%) for impact, but the Florida Keys, Miami,
and Fort Lauderdale areas have a greater-but still low-probability (1%-20%) due to the
potential influence of the Loop Current. if the current eventually resumes its normal
configuration.
._..._ - - - " , . _ - -
", : Comment [wgcSj, Good c1arificationmay be an oversimplification. but we can

,
: rephrase to make it technically correct and still :
l convey the}hougln.__"_.."_,,,,,,_.,,_. ,,~
The low probability of oil movement through the Florida Straits (approximately 15%) means
that the threat predicted for the east coast of Florida by the original continued-release
analysis is significantly reduced with control of the well and the present state of the Loop
Current.
A projected threat to the shoreline does not necessarily mean that oil will come ashore; it
means that oil or streamers or tarballs are likely to be in the general vicinity (within 20 miles
of the coast). Onshore winds and currents are required to move the oil or tarballs onto the
shore. Booms and other countermeasures may be used to mitigate the potential coastal
contact, once oil is in the area.
The longer it takes oil to travel, the more it will degrade, disperse, lose toxicity, and break into
streamers and tarballs. For example, most of the shoreline impacts will have occurred within
30 days of when the well has been brought under control. However, the oil that makes it as
far as the Florida Straits and west Texas arrives between 30 and 60 days after the end of the
release. Over that time, the oil will degrade and disperse, and any shoreline impacts to the
Keys, southeast Florida, or west Texas and beyond would be in the form of highly weathered
scattered tarballs, not a large surface slick of oil.
Co_t [8". Isn't this. prCmaturegi~en

The findings cover potential impacts based on a scenario that assumes there will be no further
. that
weare just doing well integrityte$tS'liOW
and that there is a real possibilityoflllOl"C oil in
release of significant volumes of bW~~I1)~ ,of these, iIl1R~~t~.Il1C1Y. ~e y~!'!,e.~s or,l110rlth~ ,aY'fay, ~r, .,."'theen~t,ftom ~umeds~e
may not materialize. In light of these uncertainties and extended timeframes, NOAA will
'. " c;ollcclil?D? " <'. :.C. "',' ':.: ;.. "oO ....><
continue to work with the U.S. Coast Guard and other members of the response team to track
1.CoDaent [wgc7j'.'Yea-weareloo!dng
the movement of oil, including monitoring coastal currents and the Loop Current, producing
'forwafdandgemngreadyto release this.
.. It's an assumption.
72-hour projections of oil movement, and updating these longer-term models to inform
ColliDeDt. [S~r: Wbat.givcsriscto'the91
states, communities, businesses, consumers, and others.
.....
different scenarioS
..
~he two graphics below depict the composite r~sultsof~~!~9!Y.l~~~!?~~~!r[~.s.!R[X~.~~1~f!~~.rT!~c:t.~!.. '''</=~:~;48~~ soprcc~. ~i~
The.model assumes that there were 481P~~~rr~I~;Rt~~!.~I.IL~.<?~_~I~g_~~_~.~~:.s.~!1~~~~~~~_~~~_~~!L/___
was brought under control. The model predicts the cumulative amount of oil 60 days from the last
day of the release that would be moved onto a section of coastline, or into a model grid, over the 60day period for each model run. Figure 1 shows the probability of shoreline threats resulting in enough
oil to cause a dull sheen within 20 miles of shore. However, a projected threat to the shoreline does
not necessarily mean that oil will come ashore. Figure 2 shows the percentage of spill model
. out 0f t he 9 1 tota I,th
id
h
.In a given
.
20 - by- 20
scenariOS,
at resu
te 'In enoug h 01'1 to cause a duII seen
mile grid. This amount of oil is the equivalent of two 1-centimeter tarbiills per square meter if oil is in
that form.if it is iA tRe faFA'I af taFsalls
July 17,2010
go t [
lOIS !hi' thd
IS
; si=;:clUdi~~is ~nd
C own
j in the opening seCtion, whieh WIIS intcnded to
i jsharhdc fin~inlargs~ not B:SSUIDPthtiODSurfa" 'I
:rinf:
{c
a aSlml
reactJonto e S
ce 01
. :cstiniatc.We should explain that the

Yfirslt,ime:wemcntionit. And the first time we
..
[imennonllsbouldnotbeherc
Why is this stuff here? Becausc OMB put uin
;bere in the 1851 version.
; W<: can ~USI!t out andleaveit;uodCi
lassumpnonslf we want'lo try 'If.
009847
Figure 1: Probability of New Shoreline Threat 60 days after well control.
Long Tenn Analysis

Release Date: 7111 f1 0
Probability of New Shoreline Threat

Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill
Estimate for. 60 Days (cumulative)

assumption of 481,000 barrels
OIl the
surface when the release is

stopped
I
I
.'
I
;Probablity of New Shoreline Threat
:~::%=: ::~
This image IS a composite 0(91 scenarios,

only one scenario will 'Occur.
I ----_. ------ _._,
1 -'--11
I The one "scenario-that actua.l1v occurs probably should betenned"reality"
July 17,2010
009848
Figure Z: Percent of Spill Scenarios that would cause a dull sheen in a given grid within 60 days after
well control.
10
ZO
30
40
50
60
70
SO
~o
100
Overview
Now that the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill is being brought under control, it is important to
understand how long the oil already released will continue to come ashore, and where it is most
likely to do so. The Federal government will continue to closely monitor the movement of oil as long
as it can be observed on the surface. Although the current configuration ofthe Loop Current does
not support the movement of oil from the surface slick to Southern Florida, NOAA will also continue
to monitor the status of this major oceanographic feature to evaluate any change in the threat to
South Florida shorelines.
To analyze the potential for long-term oil impact to shorelines after the flow of oil has stopped, NOAA
ran the computer model using 15 years of data on past winds and ocean currents in the Gulf of
Mexico. The model was run 91 times, sampling the historical record for those times when the
configuration of the Loop Current was similar to the current configuration (in mid-July, 2010). Each
run of the computer model predicts oil movement over a 50-day period. The model was initialized
using the present location of surface oil, and it was assumed that there is no further release of oil. It
is important to note that although this type of modeling is useful in characterizing what is likely to
happen, it cannot provide precise predictions about oil movement. The modeling is based on a 50day projection starting from the day the release was brought under control.
July 17,2010
009849
A peer review of the data and NOAA method was conducted by experts from the U.S. Navy, Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Texas A&M, Texas General Land Office,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and BP. The final modeling analysis reflects their technical input.
Assumptions and Caveats

In running this computer model, NOAA used the following parameters and assumptions:
One key assumption in modeling the spill is the amount of oil presently on the surface. This
analysis used the amount of surface oil as computed by the Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf
Incident Oil Budget Tool. The low flow scenario estimate as of July 15 (481,000 barrels) was
used. However, the Oil Budget Tool does not conSider the amount of oil that has already
reached the beach or biodegraded, so there could be less oil actually floating on the surface at
this time, potentially indicating that the model could be overstating the likelihood of shoreline
comm.ent (sufl~~lYlIllhc
~lljn~~ .................................................................................................................. _..... . "high
flow;- ~ Jower.J'!iTeS ofdcgrndatiOn it
~ulc\be cOaseMlive. TIIat is the "higbflow"
The model conSiders oil a threat to the shoreline if there is enough oil to cause a dull sheen
nmber'l
. ..... .... .........
.... .
within 20 miles from the coast. If the oil is in the form of tarballs, this is the same amount as
two 1-centimeter (approximately a half inch) tarballs per square meter. A dull sheen was used
as the threshold because it represents enough oil to be toxic to some organisms in the water
column and potentially require the closure of fisheries. The model does not consider any
amount less than this to be a threat to the shoreline.
A threat to the shoreline does not necessarily mean that oil will come ashore. Winds and
currents will have to be present to move the oil or tarballs onto the shore. Therefore, the
model may over-estimate the degree of potential shoreline threats from the spill.
Interpreting the Analysis

The probability maps shown are a composite of the 91 individual scenarios for the 481,000 barre~s of
remaining surface oil. The colors indicate the percentage of the scenarios that resulted in enough oil
to cause a dull sheen within 20 miles of shore or in the 2Q..by-20-mile grid over a 60-day period.
Primary findings are summarized on page one of this report.
There are several important factors to remember when interpreting the results:
1. The probability maps display the cumulative outcome of 91 individual scenarios. For example,
if 45 of the 91 scenarios displayed a shoreline threat for a particular coastal area, the
probability for shoreline threats at that area would be about 50%. However, it is important to
~~::;~~~~~:~:~ ~;~~e~~:~~~::~~~I!:.Ia~t~i/~\~<:~~~ci~d:~~~~h~~~~~ri~i~~!J~ioC!~~~~ ~!~~~u._ ... 1~:~I. tS~~lYr11l~ is onIyone
dominant direction of movement, so that the scenarios that threaten the Florida Straits do
not threaten west Texas. The winds, currents, flow rate, and mitigation efforts that actually
occur after the release period will determine oil movement.
2. This model only considers surface oil. The longer it takes oil to travel, the more it will degrade,
disperse, lose toxicity, and break into streamers and tarballs. For example, any oil that lingers
offshore and moves west to Texas will be on the water for a week or longer. Over that time,
the oil will degrade and disperse, and any shoreline impacts to Texas or beyond would be in
the form of scattered tarballs, not a large surface slick of oil.
July 17,20]0
009850
3. NOAA is closely monitoring the movement of oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill through
aerial and satellite observations. NOAA is also providing daily forecasts to predict where the
oil is going to go within the next 72 hours. Although the Loop Current is not presently a
significant source of transport of oil to the Florida Straits, NOAA will be able to see oil, predict
the movement, and help guide preparedness, response, and cleanup efforts should a
significant amount of surface oil enter the Loop Current and begin to move toward the Florida
Straits and eastern seaboard.
4.
Oil movement could continue beyond the 50-day time frame used in the model runs, though
we expect most of the oil will have beached or moved beyond the Gulf by then.
NOAA will continue to revise this model as new data is gathered. Updated scenarios and more
information about the model can be found at:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon/longterm outlook.
July 17,2010
Oil Budget Tool
009851

Date: Mon, 19 Jul2010 11:41:21 -0400
To: "Parsons, Roger" <Roger.L.Parsons@uscg.mil>, "Gautier, Peter CAPT'
<Peter.W.Gautier@uscg.mil>, Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Pete and Roger,
NOAA is preparing a document that will include long term fate of surface and
sub-surface oil in the Gulf. For the estimate of the oil remaining we would like
to use the Oil Budget tool developed by the FRTG of the NIC. The document will be
shared publicly when completed and cleared. I would like to verify that our use of
the Oil Budget tool for this document is approved.
Mark
lofl
9/27/20102: 12 PM
[Fwd: Fw: what's next for the oil?]
009852
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: what's next for the oil?]

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:20:22 -0400
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Fw: what's next for the oil?

Date:Mon, 19 Jul2010 02:09:09 +0000
From:Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov
Reply-To:Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov
To:William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
From: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>

Date: Sun, 18 Jul2010 21:46:10 -0400
To: 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>
Cc: dave.westerholm@noaa.gov<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>;
Margaret.spring@noaa.gov<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Subject: what's next for the oil?
Dave,
On FridayaTMs PrincipalsaTM call the need was identified for some useful documents about what is
likely to happen next with the oil, i.e., once it has stopped flowing for good. I need you to pull
together a small, tight, team a" you, Conner, Comms (Austin?), Leg, Science, to come up with a
summary that we can share with the WH a" within a day would be good.
In general it could build upon the content of the daily Emergency Response Division report section
that deals with just this topic (see below), and with the most recent model runs and write-up. I suggest
a short report (text format), to be accompanied by TPs and Q&As. AI believe that this type of
broader document will be more useful than just the model run doc that leaves too many questions
unanswered.
However, there are a few enhancements to the ERD text (admittedly intended for a NOAA audience):
(1) we need to put some of our terms in areEnglisha+ for the pUblic. For example, what does
arenear background levelsa+ for the Gulfmean? And can we provide a little more context
for aremay persist for yearsa+ so it is not misinterpreted but is accurate.A This is to some
extent a conversation between comms and the oil spill experts as to how to talk about this.
(2) Can we overlay this with the information from the mass balance team (and what we have
captured, contained, burned, etc. a" from JIC dailies) a" the oil budget context.
(3) Can we provide some context about how much oil was released, what has impacted shoreline
1 00
9/27/20102:12 PM
009853
and what has been recovered/evaporated in order to see if we can tell the story about how
much work has been done to reduce impact (recover oil)?
(4) We should specify our plans to continue to monitor and ensure access to information by the
public (how long will we be providing 72 hour trajectories and other monitoring productsa"
how many months?) .
Our materials should be definitive as possible, or at least say areas neededa+ concerning what we
will do in the future (vs using vague terms like aremaya+).
Let me know how quickly you can get this team and product together. A We will be engaging other
agencies in this
Thanks,
Jane
*************************************
NOAA Emergency Response Division (ERD)
Report # 86: July 16,2010 1900 PDT
Me 252 DEEPWA TER HORIZON Incidents, Gulf of Mexico, Major Spill Incident
Incident status, Day 88: (the item below is only one of a number of topics in the report;
JL has abstractedjust this one)
Floating Oil:
With the tentative shut in of the well, OR&R has received many questions about how long oil
may remain floating. Once the wellhead is fully secured, the remaining floating oil will continue
to weather and degrade. Over time this floating oil will become more widely scattered and
become less easily skimmed, burned, or dispersed. We expect that floating, recoverable oil may
persist for several weeks. After approximately a month, oil will be weathered and dispersed to
the point that at-sea response efforts and recovery equipment will likely have marginal
productivity and become impractical, but this oil may still be visible in aerial overflights and
satellite imagery. Shoreline cleanup operations will likely be required for several months or
longer, but substantial new oiling will not be an issue after approximately 4 to 6 weeks. Unless
oceanographic and weather conditions change substantially, the areas that already have been
impacted are the areas most likely to be impacted in the future. Episodic and intermittent
shoreline impacts could be possible after this time, but would most likely be in the form of
heavily weathered tarballs and tarmats. Oil stranded on shorelines or buried in beach sediments
could also be eroded and remobilized and result in localized impacts. These episodic impacts
could persist for months, but could probably be addressed through hot-shot or rapid response
crews rather than daily cleanup operations. In the long run, tarballs from the Deepwater Horizon
could persist for years, but at levels near background for the Gulf.
In summary, we predict the following time line:
'1',' Several weeks- Floating, actionable oil at sea
I,' Up to a Month- Floating oil where at sea recovery is possible, and where trajectory
modeling may be needed
'j,. 4 to 6 weeks- Potential for daily/chronic shoreline impacts
'j,' Up to 6 months- Shoreline Cleanup operations on-going to address episodic oiling
of3
9/27/2010 2:12 PM
009854

Phone: 301-713-3038 (190)
30f3
9/27/20102:12 PM
Oil Budget Tool CaveatslLimitations and Subsmface estimate
009855
Subject: Oil Budget Tool Caveats/Limitations and Subsurface estimate

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:35:51 -0400
To: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
cc: Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Bill,
I am putting a general use (eventually public) document that will use the Oil
Budget tool as the source for estimates of the surface oil and subsurface oil (if
possible). I have read your technical document that discusses the methodology for
the calculations in the tool. I was hoping that you could put together a short
bulleted list of caveats and limitations associated with your methodology that can
be explained to the laymen. Also we want to estimate the subsurface dispersed
(naturally and chemically). Is there a way to tease that out of your breakout naturally dispersed, chemically dispersed, and dissolved?
Mark
1 of 1
9/27/20102:12 PM
URGENT: Mtg of !ASG mbrs with NIe on Tuesday morning
009856
Subject: URGENT: Mtg of IASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday morning

From: "Sturm, Francis" <Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>
Date: Man, 19 Jul 2010 16:10:55 -0400
To: HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP <NIC-HQIASG@uscg.mil>, "Kayyem, Juliette" <juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>, "Wareing, Tracy"
<tracy.wareing@dhs.gov>, "Lane, Jan P" <jan.lane@dhs.gov>, drew.schneider@dhs.gov,
"Ga"oway, James" <james.ga"oway@hhs.gov>, "Gould, Mark" <Mark.C.Gould@uscg.mil>,
"Parsons, Roger" <Roger.LParsons@uscg.mil>, "Bowman, Russe" E LCDR"
<Russe". E. Bowman@uscg.mil>
CC: "Gautier, Peter CAPT' <Peter.W.Gautier@uscg.mil>, "Rooke, Connie CDR"
<Connie.M.Rooke@uscg.mil>, connie.rooke@dhs.gov, "Hidalgo, Angelina LCDR"
<Angelina.Hidalgo@uscg.mil>
IASG members
Admiral Allen is in town for today and tomorrow.
schedule and would like to meet with the IASG to
spend some time with the group.
He has some time in his

an update on some issues and
We just found out that the time frame for this will be 0800 to 0900 on Tuesday
morning.
We plan to meet in the open area in Room 3500, around the conference
table.
This allows enough room for people to draw chairs up around the table and
engage in discussion.
We would like to tee up the following issues in particular this meeting, though
other items may also be discussed.
For each topic, we need a short brief of a
few minutes to update the admiral on progress to date.
I have listed the issue
and the proposed briefer/discussion leader.
If someone else should lead the
discussion, or if you are listed as a leader and are not available,
let me
know.
1. Claims/IST .... Tracy Wareing/Jan Lane/Deb .... what is the latest on implementing
the Feinberg prototcol and shifting from BP claims centers.
2. Community Relations .... Juliette/Drew Schneider ... how are the teams
functioning now with the W/H players in place.
3. Seafood Testing .... RADM G/Ralph Lopez ... how does the protocol
work ... challenges with reopening closed areas.
4. FRTG - (Steve Hammon/Mark Miller) how are we doing with the oil
budget ... explain what areas in the budget are weaker than others and efforts
underway to tighen those up.
4. Physical Countermeasures - (Frank Sturm/Russ Bowman) .... explain where we are
with ACOE permitting and NWP 20.
5. IATAP ..... (Austin Gould/Shannon Jenkins) .... what are the challenges with
operationali
IATAP items and getting the non-IATAP items into the logistics
group for either FOSC or BP purchasing ...
6. Other Countermeasures (Dave Ormes/Joe Gleason) .... vis on the other projects
that are coming into the team for review from CEQ/VP ... how we are reviewing them.
Regards,
Frank Sturm
lof3
9/27/20102:12 PM
URGENT: Mtg ofIASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday morning
009857
F. J. Sturm
NIC IASG Deputy Director (Alternate)
O.S. Coast Guard
francis.j.sturm@uscg.mil
-----Original Message----From: Sturm, Francis

To: Rooke, Connie CDR; Hidalgo, Angelina LCDR
Cc: Grawe, William: Brown, Baron CDR; Gleason, Joseph
Subject: FW: Potential Mtg of IASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday
Connie, Angie,
Here is a suggested list of topics that IASG members could discuss with ADM
Allen. Recommend tomorrow vice today, so we could prepare the folks.
I would hope we could cover these 6 topics in an hour (I hope: if we could build
in a little more time for Q&A, that would be helpful) .
FJS
F. J. Sturm
NIC jnteragency Staff
U.S. Coast Guard
From:
[mailto:Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.gov]
Sent: Sunday, July
5:39 PM
To: Sturm, Francis; Kayyem, Juliette
Cc: Grawe, William
Subject: Re: Potential Mtg of IASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday
This sounds good. Excellent. Do we have clarity on his schedule.
From: Sturm, Francis <Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.dhs.gov>

To: Kayyem, Juliette <Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.gov>
Cc: Grawe, William
ADM Allen will be in town on Monday and Tuesday. I spoke to his EA, Connie Rook,
on Friday afternoon. She asked if we might want to set aside some of the
Admiral's time to meet with the IASG and get updates on appropriate topics.
Bill and I discussed and traded ideas this weekend.
that Bill captured after our discussion.
Below is a list of ideas
Suggested list:
1. Claims/IST .... Tracy/Jan/Deb .... what is the latest on implementing the
Feinberg prototcol and shifting from BP claims centers.
2of3
9/27/20102: 12 PM
URGENT: Mtg oflASG mbrs with NIe on Tuesday morning
009858
2. Community Relations .... Juliette/Drew ... how are the teams functioning now
with the N/H players in place.
3. Seafood Testing .... RADM G/Ralph ... how does the protocol work ... challenges
with reopening closed areas.
4. FRTG - (Steve/Mark) how are we doing with the oil budget ... explain what areas
in the budget are weaker than others and efforts underway to tighen those up.
4. Physical Countermeasures - (Dave Ormes/Russ) .... explain where we are with
ACOE permitting and NWP 20.
5. IATAP ..... (Austin/Shannon) .... what are the challenges with operationali
IATAP items and getting the non-IATAP items into the logistics group for either
Fose or BP purchasing ...
6. Other Countermeasures (Dave/Joe/Bill/Frank) .... vis on the other projects that
are coming into the team for review from CEQ/VP ... how we are reviewing them.
Before we go back to Connie with this list, we wanted to bounce the idea off of
you. Please let us know if you agree with the concept, and if you have any other
topics we should add to the list.
Bill will be out on Monday for some med appts so we recommend setting this up for
Tuesday. This will allow the IASG reps to pull together their thoughts and
prepare.
Frank
30f3
9/27/2010 2: 12 PM
Re: Oil Budget Tool Caveats/Limitations and Subsurface estimate
009859
Subject: Re: Oil Budget Tool Caveats/Limitations and Subsurface estimate

From: IIMark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>.
Date: Mon, 19 Jul2010 16:36:01 -0400
To: BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov
CC: Bill Conner <William,Conner@noaa.gov>
How significant is the dissolved fraction?
Mark
Bill Lehr wrote:
! Mark,
,~
! Not
dissolved (now included under evaporation) since the necessary surface

right above the source were not taken. However, we can separate the
subsurface natural and chemically dispersed estimates,
j samples
1
\ Bill L
! On
;
1~
7/19/10 12:35 PM, Mark.W.Miller wrote:

B'll
~
I! I
am putting a general use (eventually public) document that will use the Oil
surface oil and subsurface oil
(if possible). I have read your technical document that discusses the
! I methodology for the calculations in the tool. I was hoping that you could put
I 1 together a short bulleted list of caveats and limitations associated with your
I!methodoiogy that can be explained to the laymen. Also we want to estimate the
II subsurface dispersed (naturally and chemically). Is there a way to tease that
j ! out of your breakout - naturally dispersed, chemically dispersed, and
III
dissolved?
I
.
!
i Budget tool as the source for estimates of the
II
Ii
II. Mark
~
1 of 1
9/27/20102: 12 PM
RE: URGENT: Mtg of IASG mbrs with NIe on Tuesday morning
009860
Subject: RE: URGENT: Mtg of IASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday morning
From: HSturm, Francis" <Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:37:50 -0400
To: "Sturm, Francis" <Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>, HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCYSOLUTIONS-GROUP <NIC-HQ-IASG@uscg.mil>, "Kayyem, Juliette"
<juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>, "Wareing, Tracy" <tracy.wareing@dhs.gov>, "Lane, Jan pH
<jan.lane@dhs.gov>, drew.schneider@dhs.gov, 11 Gall oway , James"
<james.galloway@hhs.gov>, "Gould, Mark" <Mark.C.Gould@uscg.mil>, "Parsons, Rogerl1
<Roger.L.Parsons@uscg.mil>, "Bowman, Russell E LCDR" <Russell.E.Bowman@uscg.mil>
CC: "Gautier, Peter CAPT' <Peter.W.Gautier@uscg.mil>, "Rooke, Connie CDR"
<Angelina. Hidalgo@uscg.mil>
All - For those who cannot make it to the NIC, I think. we will have a call-in
number: 202-372-1717.
Regards,
Frank Sturm
F. J. Sturm
NIC Interagency Staff
U.S. Coast Guard

To: HQS-bG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGE~CY-SOLUTIONS-GROUPi Kayyem, Juliette; Wareing,
Tracy; Lane, Jan Pi 'drew.schneider@dhs.gov'i Galloway, James; Gould, Mark;
Parsons, Roger; Bowman t Russell E LCDR
Cc: Gautier, Peter CAPTi Rooke, Connie CDR; 'connie.rooke@dhs.gov'; Hidalgo,
Angelina LCDR
IASG members
Admiral Allen is in town for today and tomorrow. He has some time in his
schedule and would like to meet with the IASG to get an update on some issues and
morning. We plan to meet in the open area in Room 3500, around the conference
table. This allows enough room for people to draw chairs up around the table and
other items may also be discussed. For each topic, we need a short brief of a
few minutes to update the admiral on progress to date. I have listed the issue
and the proposed briefer/discussion leader. If someone else should lead the
discussion, or if you are listed as a leader and are not available, please let me
know.
lof3
9/27/20102:12 PM
RE: URGENT: Mtg of IASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday morning
009861
operationalizing IATAP items and getting the non-IATAP items into the logistics
Regards,
Frank Sturm
F. J. Sturm
N1C IASG Deputy Director (Alternate)
U.S. Coast Guard

Cc: Grawe, William; Brown, Baron CDR; Gleason, Joseph
Subject: FW: Potential Mtg of IASG mbrs with N1C on Tuesday
Connie, Angie,
Here is a suggested list of topics that 1ASG members could discuss with ADM
I would hope we could cover these 6 topics in an hour (I hope; if we could build
FJS
F. J. Sturm
N1C Interagency Staff
U.S. Coast Guard
From: Juliette.Kayvem@dhs.gov [mailto:Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.gov]

Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 5:39 PM
Cc: Grawe, William
20f3
9/27/20102: 12 PM
RE: URGENT: Mtg of IASG mbrs with NIe on Tuesday morning
009862


Cc: Grawe, William
Suggested list:
1. Claims/1ST .... Tracy/Jan/Deb .... what is the latest on implementing the
with the W/H players in place.
4. Physical Countermeasures ACOE permitting and NWP 20.
(Dave Ormes/Russ) .... explain where we are with
5. IATAP ..... (Austin/Shannon) .... what are the challenges with operationalizing
FOSC or BP purchasing ...
prepare.
Frank
30f3
9/27/20102:12 PM
009863
Subject; Re: Oil Budget Tool Caveats/Limitations and Subsurface estimate

From: Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:41:50 -0700
CC: Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Mark,
Not dissolved (now included under evaporation) since the necessary surface
samples right above the source were not taken. However, we can separate the
subsurface natural and chemically dispersed estimates.
Bill L
i Bill,
II Budget
I am putting a
tool as
general use (eventually public) document that will use the Oil
the source for estimates of the surface oil and subsurface oil
! (if possible). I have read your technical document that discusses the
methodology for the calculations in the tool. I was hoping that you could put
! together a short bulleted list of caveats and limitations associated with your
!methodology that can be explained to the laymen. Also we want to estimate the
! subsurface dispersed (naturally and chemically). Is there a way to tease that
lout of your breakout - naturally dispersed, chemically dispersed, and dissolved?
Mark
1 of 1
9/27/20]02: 12 PM
Re: Oil Budget Tool CaveatS/limitations and Subsurface estimate
009864

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:54:16 -0700

I don't know. That's the point. It was an important measurement that needed to be
made. The Environment Canada folks think it could be significant, particularly
with regard to the properties of the surface oil. Merv claims that it contributed
to the rapid emulsification of the surface oil.
j Mark
,
!I B1.11
. !
Ii
j.
Lehr wrote:
Mark,
11
11
!!
'j Bill L
.
!.'

Bill,
I am putting a general use (eventually public) document that will use the
Oil Budget tool as the source for estimates of the surface oil and
subsurface oil (if possible). I have read your technical document that
discusses the methodology for the calculations in the tool. I was hoping
that you could put together a short bulleted list of caveats and limitations
associated with your methodology that can be explained to the laymen. Also
we want to estimate the subsurface dispersed (naturally and chemically). Is
there a way to tease that out of your breakout - naturally dispersed,
chemically dispersed, and dissolved?
Mark
1 of 1
9/27/20102:12 PM
009865

From: "Mark. W. Miller" <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:07:13 -0400
To: BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov
Thanks Bill. What number do you use for evaporated and dissolved - 40%?
Bill Lehr wrote:
don't know. That's the point. It was an important measurement that needed to
I be made. The Environment Canada folks think it could be significant,
\ particularly with regard to the properties of the surface oil. Merv claims that
it contributed to the rapid emulsification of the surface oil.
lI
!
!! On

Mark
!!
if
Bill Lehr wrote:
t I Mark,
!, II
: i
! I Not dissolved (now included under evaporation) since the necessary surface
!; II
1!
Ii
II
I,
12:35 PM, Mark.W.Miller wrote:
I!
II
Bill,
I
I
i '
,f
~
I'
jI
11
ii
II
I am putting a general use (eventually public) document that will use the
Oil Budget tool as the source for estimates of the surface oil and
that you could put together a short bulleted list of caveats and
limitations associated with your methodology that can be explained to the
laymen. Also we want to estimate the subsurface dispersed (naturally and
, chemically). Is there a way to tease that out of your breakout - naturally
dispersed, chemically dispersed, and dissolved?
II,/I ;,Mark
!
lofI
"
9/27/20102:13 PM
009866

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:10:50 -0700
More, but it was time dependent. Most on the first day that it hit the surface
with a smaller amount the second day unless it had been collected or burned
Bill. What number do you use for evaporated and dissolved - 40%?
I1 Thanks
i Bill
II
iJ
;\1
II
Lehr wrote:
I don't know. That's the point. It was an important measurement that needed to
be made. The Environment Canada folks think it could be significant,
particularly with regard to the properties of the surface oil. Merv claims
,!
that it contributed to the rapid emulsification of the surface oil.
Ii
'Ii On
I
!~
I
I
!i

. How significant is the dissolved fraction?
1
\
If
Lehr wrote:
Mark,
II
IIj
j! . samples right above the source were not taken. However, we can separate
tithe subsurface natural and chemically dispersed estimates.
!!
II.I '
j
j
'1, .
ii'
II

Bill,
I!
I'
, !
II
I!
II
;1,
11
!1
I,.
I!
1 of 1
Bill L
I am putting a general use (eventually public) document that will use

the Oil Budget tool as the source for estimates of the surface oil and
that you could put together a short bulleted list of caveats and
limitations associated with your methodology that can be explained to
the laymen. Also we want to estimate the subsurface dispersed (naturally
and chemically). Is there a way to tease that out of your breakout 'naturally dispersed, chemically dispersed, and dissolved?
Mark
", !IIi
,
!i
II
11
, i i
9/27/2010 2: 13 PM
Fw: Re: oil budget tool
009867
Subject: Fw: Re: oil budget tool

From: Dean Dale <
@genwest.com>
Date: Mont 19 Jul 2010 17:19:22 -0700
Hi Mark,
Here is your reminder.
d
From: Dean Dale [mailto:

@genwest.com]
To: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.lVliller@noaa.gov]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:39:37 -0700
d
'

@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:55:42 -0700
Try https:flmy.usgs.gov{oilBudget
Dean Dale wrote:
I! IMark,
was able to login with my NOAA email and USGS password to get on the site. I just can't find the oil
budget tool.
d ________________________________________________________________
I
,. To: Dean Dale [mailto:
@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 201009:27:11-0700
Mark
Dean Dale wrote:
Hi Mark,
I went to the USGS site for the oil budget tool, but couldn't find it. I did searches in CSC
(Comprehensive Science Catalog) and Science Base - Catalog directories for "oil budget tool"
with no hits. Can you provide me with more direction please? Thanks.
d
10f4
9/27/2010 2:13 PM
009868

Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:12:09 -0700
Subject: Re: FIN: Skimmer Strike Team
@genwest.com]
i
~
Dean,
I tI
II
Mark
:::\ooking for an SSC.
Just someone who has basic skimmer
knOWle~J
and who is not afraid to ask questions and get dirty. Folks will j
David
I
\1
-----Original Message----From: Mark.W.Miller (mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

To: Moore, David M.
I
1
David,
Good to see you still connected. I have a dispersant webinar Tuesdayj I

that will tie me up most of the day. Let's talk later in the week,;crnl
you give me some background on what would be needed - that will he 1.' p \!
identify the right person. The problem we may run into is that it mort
probably would be one of our SSCs who are completely booked. We shalt
1
I !
II
Mark
I
I
Mark,
the
f!
I
this
2of4
Do you have someone in NOAA in mind'
forI
1
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009869
effort?
David
-----Original Message----From: Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil [mailto:Amy.McElroy@uscg.milJ
Good Afternoon,
I did speak with MR. Pond while he was in NOLA. He was not able
~ol
I
!
iI
I !!
I!
I
I
to the FOSC about it due to time constraints. We have not id'd alc
member to be on the team, yet either. I will bring this up tomorro
()n

Amy
-----Origina1 Message----I
From: prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov
I
[mail to :orvs=80258de35=David .Moore@mms.govJ On Behalf Of Moorei, Dayif
.I
II

To: McElroy, Amy LTi rolfe.jason@noaa.go v
; . arl
Amy - Were you able to speak with Bob Pond while he was at the(UAC
did he broach this topic with the FOSC? Do we have theirsupport.?
Has

Jason - Can you provide the name of and contact data for the
30f4
9/27/20102:13 PM
009870

Even if we can't get people on the boats this week, would Ii
start mining whatever data they can from Houma command post
Thanks,
David
David M. Moore
703-787-1637
david.moore@mms.gov
4of4
9/27/2010 2:13 PM
[Fwd: Fw: Re: oil budget tool]
009871
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Re: oil budget tool]

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:23:11 -0400
Sky,
Just wanted to check with you for the mechanical cleanup data. Is the data just
missing?
Mark

From: Dean Dale <
@genwest.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:19:22 -0700
Hi Mark,
d

@genwest.com]
To: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Millernoaa.gov]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:39:37 -0700
d

@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:55:42 -0700
Dean Dale wrote:
I I~~
was able to login with my NOAA email and USGS password to get on the site. I just can't find the oil
budget tool.
d
I.
I
j
From: Mark.W.Miller [maiJto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 201009:27:11-0700
lof4
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009872
Mark
Dean Dale wrote:
Hi Mark,
I went to the USGS site for the oil budget tool, but .couldn't find it. I did searches in CSC
(Comprehensive Science Catalog) and Science Base - Catalog directories for "oil budget tool"
with no hits. Can you provide me with more direction please? Thanks.
d

@genwest.com], Dean Dale [mailto:d
Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:12:09 -0700
@genwest.com]
Dean,
Mark

Mark,
.!I
I t
I
Not looking for an SSC. Just someone who has basic skimmer knowledg, l'
and who is not afraid to ask questions and get dirty. Folks will
I
.
I
David
-----Original Message----From: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov)
To: Moore, David M.
David,
,
Good to see you still connected. I.have a dispersant webinar Tuesd~y I
that will tie me up most of the day. Let's talk later in the week.~ C n.1
you give me some background on what would be needed - that will he~p
identify the right person. The problem we may run into is that it mo tl
probably would be one of our SSCs who are completely booked. We sha l i
Ii
Mark
I'
Mark,
20f4
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009873
Heard you are back. Jason said NOAA was on board with a Strik~ Te m
concept of 3 persons (one each from BOEM, NOAH, and USCG) to addre s
the
Do you have someone in NOAA in mind for'
this
effort?
Will talk tomorrow with Amy as well to get this started:.
David
-----Original Message----From: Amy. McElroy@u'scg . mil [mail to : Amy . McElroy@uscg.mil]
Sent: Monday, ~uly 12, 2010 2:32 PM
To: Moore, David M.i rolfe.jason@noaa.gov
Good Afternoon,
I
did speak with MR. Pond while he was in NOLA. He was not able
talk
,
!
~
ae~
to the FOSe about it due to time constraints. We have not id'd

!
member to be on the team, yet either. I will bring this up tomorfof on

Amy
[mailto :prvs=80258de35=David. Moore@mms. gov] On Behalf Of Moore!,
i~
M.

30f4
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009874
!t
Amy - Were you able to speak with Bob Pond while he was at thei uhc
did he broach this topic with the FOSC? Do we have their sUPp:br~?
I
Jason - Can you provide the name of and contact data for the
person
.1
lik~ the~
10
I
Even if we can't get people on the boats this week, would

start mining whatever data they can from Houma command post where rli
.
II
Thanks,
! I!
I
David
I II
I
David M. Moore

703-787-1637
david.moore@mms.gov
I! I!
1 '
',.
' Content-Type:
message/rfc822
Fw: Re: 011 budget tool.eml Cont entEd"
7b't
- nco mg: I
.
4of4
9/27/20102:13 PM
FW: URGENT: Mtg ofIASG mbrs with NIe on Tuesday morning
009875
Subject: FW: URGENT: Mtg of IASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday morning
From: "Sturm, Francis" <Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul2010 06:40:58 -0400
To: "Gould, Austin CAPr' <Austin.J.Gould@uscg.mil>, "Jenkins, Shannon Mr."
<Shannon.R.Jenkins@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
"Hammon, Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov>
CC: "Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>, "Gleason, Joseph"
<joseph.gleason@dhs.gov>
For the 0800 mtg with ADM Allen this morning, I know who will brief for most of
the topics below.
For the Flow Rate Technical Group update:
will brief?
For the IATAP update:
brief?
Mark or Steve - Can you confirm who
Austin or Shannon - Can you tell me who will be present to
Thks
Frank Sturm
F. J. Sturm
NIC Interagency - Deputy
U.S. Coast Guard
ternate)

To: HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS~GROUP; Kayyem, Juliette; Wareing,
Tracy; Lane, Jan Pi 'drew.schneider@dhs.gov'i Galloway, James: Gould, Mark:
Parsons, Roger; Bowman, Russell E LCDR
Cc: Gautier, Peter CAPT: Rooke, Connie CDR: 'connie.rooke@dhs.gov'; Hidalgo,
Angelina LCDR
IASG members
know.
.
100
9/27/20102:13 PM
FW: URGENT: Mtg ofIASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday morning
009876
that are coming into the team for review from CEQ!VP ... how we are reviewing them.
Regards,
Frank Sturm
F. J. Sturm
U.S. Coast Guard

Connie, Angie,
FJS
F. J. Sturm
U.S. Coast Guard
From: Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.oov [mailto:Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.gov)

2of3
9/27/20102:13 PM
FW: URGENT: Mtg of IASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday morning
009877
Cc: Grawe, William

From: Sturm, Francis <Francis.J.Sturm@uscq.dhs.gov>

Cc: Grawe, William
ADM Allen will be in town on Monday and Tuesday. I spoke to his EAr Connie Rook,
Suggested list:
1. Claims/IST .... Tracy/Jan/Deb .... what is the latest on implementing the
4. FRTG - (Steve/Mark) hbw are we doing with the oil budget ... explain what areas
4. Physical Countermeasures - (Dave Ormes/Russ) .... explain where we are with
ACOE permitting and NWP 20.
Tuesday. This will allow the lASG reps to pull together their thoughts and
prepare.
Frank
300
9/27/2010 2: 13 PM
UPDATE: New phone nmnber for mtg ofIASG mbrs with NIC on Tu
...
009878
Subject: UPDATE: New phone number for mtg of IASG mbrs'with NIC on Tuesday morning
From: "Sturm, Francis" <Francis.J.StlJrm@lJscg.mil>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 201007:02:01 -0400
To: "Sturm, Francis" <Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>, HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCYSOLUTIONS-GROUP <NIC-HQ-IASG@uscg.mil>, "Kayyem, Juliette"
<juliette.kayyem@dhs.gov>, "Wareing, Tracy" <tracy.wareing@dhs.gov>, "Lane, Jan pI!
<jan.lane@dhs.gov>, drew.schneider@dhs.gov, "Galloway, James"
<james.galloway@hhs.gov>, "Gould, Mark" <Mark.C.Gould@uscg.mil>, "Parsons, Roger"
<Roger.L.Parsons@uscg.mil>, "Bowman, Russell E LCDR"
<Russell.E.Bowman@uscg.mil>, Bern.Megrey@noaa.gov, John.Oliver@noaa.gov,
Ch ris. Rill ing@noaa.gov
CC: "Gautier, Peter CAPT" <Peter.W.Gautier@uscg.mil>, "Rooke, Connie CDR"
<Angelina. Hidalgo@uscg.mil>, "Hubble, Solange" <Solange. O. Hubble@uscg.mil>
Or those of you who asked to call into today's 0800 meeting of the IASG with Adm
Allen, Ihave an updated phone number to use:
Hopefully, this phone number and the PIN will work.

Frank Sturm
F. J. Sturm
NrC Interagency Staff - Deputy (Alternate}
U.S. Coast Guard

To: Sturm, Francis; HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP; Kayyem,
Juliette; Wareing, Tracy; Lane, Jan P; 'drew.schneider@dhs.gov'; Galloway, James;
Gould, Mark; Parsons, Roger; Bowman, Russell E LCDR
Cc: Gautier, Peter CAPT; Rooke, Connie CDR; 'connie.rooke@dhs.gov'; Hidalgo,
Angelina LCDR
All - For those who cannot make it to the NIC, I think we will have a call-in
Regards,
Frank Sturm
F. J. Sturm
NrC Interagency Staff
O.S. Coast Guard
Tel:
] of4
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009879
UPDA TE: New phone ntnnber for mtg of IASG mbrs with NIC on Tu:..

To: HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP; Kayyem, Juliette; Wareing,
Tracy; Lane, Jan Pi 'drew.schneider@dhs.gov'i Galloway, James; Gould, Mark;
Angelina LCDR
IASG members
and the proposed briefer/discussion leader", If someone else should lead the
know.
1. Claims/1ST .... Tracy Wareing/Jan Lane/Deb .... what is the latest on implementing
with ACOE permitting !,md NWP 20.
5. IATAP .... , (Austin Gould/Shannon Jenkins) .... what are the challenges with
group for either FOSC or BP purchasing.,.
that are corning into the team for review from CEQ/VP ... how we are reviewing them.
Regards,
Frank Sturm
F. J. Sturm
U.S. Coast Guard
francis.j.sturm@
2of4
9/27/2010 2:13 PM
009880
UPDATE: New phone number for mtg ofIASG mbrs with NIe on Tu...

To: Rooke, Connie CDRi Hidalgo, Angelina LCDR
Cc: Grawe, William; Brown, Baron CDRi Gleason, Joseph
Subject: FW: Potential Mtg of 1ASG mbrs with N1C on Tuesday
Connie, Angie,
FJS
F. J. Sturm
N1C Interagency Staff
U.S. Coast Guard
Tel:
From: Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.gov [mailto:Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.gov]

Cc: Grawe, William

Cc: Grawe, William
Suggested list:
1. ClaimS/1ST .... Tracy/Jan/Deb .... what is the latest on implementing the
Feinberg prototco1 and shifting from BP claims centers.
3. Seafood Testing .... RADM G/Ralph ... how does the protocol work .. challenges
30f4
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009881
UPDATE: New phone number for mtg ofIASG mbrs with NIe on Tu...
6. Other Countermeasures (Dave!Joe/Bill/Frank) .... vis on the other projects that
are coming into the team for review from CEQ!VP ... how we are reviewing them.
prepare.
Frank
4of4
9/27/20102: 13 PM
Re: URGENT: Mtg ofIASG mbrs with NIe on Tuesday morning
009882
NIC Interagency - Deputy (Alternate)

U.S. Coast Guard

To: HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUPi Kayyem, Juliette; Wareing,
Tracy; Lane, Jan P; 'drew.schneider@dhs.gov'; Galloway, James; Gould, Mark;
Angelina LCDR
IASG members
know.
Regards,
Frank Sturm
F. J. Sturm
2of4
9/27/20102: 13 PM
Re: URGENT: Mtg oflASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday morning
009883
N1C IASG Deputy Director (Alternate)

u.s. Coast Guard

Connie, Angie,
in a little more time for Q&A, that would be helpful).
FJS
F. J. Sturm
U.S. Coast Guard

Cc: Grawe, William

Cc: Grawe, William
Suggested list:
1. Claims/1ST .... Tracy/Jan/Deb .... what is the latest on implementing the
30f4
9/27/20102:13 PM
Re: URGENT: Mtg ofIASG mbrs with NlC on Tuesday morning
009884

in the budget are weaker than others and ~fforts underway to tighen those up.
5. lATAP ..... (Austin/Shannon) .... what are the challenges with operationalizing
IATAP items and getting the non-lATAP items into the logistics group for either
Tuesday. This will allow the lASG reps to pull together their thoughts and
prepare.
Frank
40f4
9/27/2010 2: 13 PM
RE: URGENT: Mtg ofIASG mbrs with NIe on Tuesday morning
009885
From: "Gould, Austin CAPT ' <Austin.J.Gould@uscg.mil>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul2010 07:41:00 -0400
To: "Sturm, Francis" <Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>, "Jenkins, Shannon Mr."
<Shannon.R.Jenkins@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
"Hammon, Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov>
CC: "Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>, "Gleason, Joseph"
<joseph.gleason@dhs.gov>
I just got this ..... 1think you copied the wrong Gould yesterday. I will be there, but lightly prepared.
Sent: Tuesday, July 20,201006:41 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:
Gould, Austin CAPT; Jenkins, Shannon Mr.; Mark Miller - NOAA; Hammon, Sieve
Cc:
Brown, Baron CDR; Gleason, Joseph
Subject:
FW: URGENT: Mtg of IASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday morning
For the 0800 mtg with ADM Allen this morning, I know who will brief for most of the topics below.
For the Flow Rate Technical Group update: Mark or Steve - Can you confirm who will brief?
For the IATAP update: Austin or Shannon - Can you tell me who will be present to brief?
Thks
Frank Sturm
F. J. Sturm
NIC Interagency - Deputy (Alternate)
U.S. Coast Guard
-----0 rigi nal Message----From: Sturm, Francis

Sent: Monday, July 19. 20104:11 PM
To: HQS-DG-LST-NIC-HQ-INTERAGENCY-SOLUTIONS-GROUP; Kayyem, Juliette; Wareing, Tracy; Lane, Jan
P; 'drew.schneider@dhs.gov'; Galloway, James; Gould, Mark; Parsons, Roger; Bowman, Russell E LCDR
Cc: Gautier, Peter CAPT; Rooke, Connie CDR; 'connie.rooke@dhs.gov'; Hidalgo, Angelina LCDR
IASG members
Admiral Allen is in town for today and tomorrow. He has some time in his schedule and would like to meet with
the IASG to get an update on some issues and spend some time with the group.
We just found out that the time frame for this will be 0800 to 0900 on Tuesday morning. We plan to meet in the
open area in Room 3500, around the conference table. This allows enough room for people to draw chairs up
around the table and engage in discussion.
We would like to tee up the following issues in particular this meeting, though other items may also be
discussed. For each topiC, we need a short brief of a few minutes to update the admiral on progress to date.
lof4
9/27/2010 2:13'PM
RE: URGENT: Mtg ofIASG mbrs with NIC on Tuesday moming
009886
have listed the issue and the proposed briefer/discussion leader. If someone else should lead the discussion. or
if you are listed as a leader and are not available. please let me know.
1. ClaimslIST.... Tracy Wareing/Jan Lane/Deb .... what is the latest on implementing the Feinberg prototcol and
shifting from BP claims centers.
2. Community Relations .... Juliette/Drew Schneider... how are the teams functioning now with the W/H players in
place.
3. Seafood Testing .... RADM G/Raiph Lopez... how does the protocol work ... challenges with reopening closed
areas.
4. FRTG - (Steve Hammon/Mark Miller) how are we doing with the oil budgeLexplain what areas in the budget
are weaker than others and efforts underway to tighen those up.
4. PhYSical Countermeasures - (Frank Sturm/Russ Bowman) .... explain where we are with ACOE permitting and
NWP20.
5. IATAP..... (Austin Gould/Shannon Jenkins) .... what are the challenges with operationalizing IATAP items and
getting the non-IATAP items into the logistics group for either FOSC or BP purchasing ...
6. Other Countermeasures (Dave Ormes/Joe Gleason} .... vis on the other projects that are coming into the team
for review from CEONP ... how we are reviewing them.
Regards.
Frank Sturm
F. J. Sturm
U.S. Coast Guard
-----Original Message----From: Sturm. Francis

Sent: Monday. July 19,201010:05 AM
Cc: Grawe, William; Brown. Baron CDR; Gleason, Joseph
Connie, Angie.
Here is a suggested list of topics that IASG members could discuss with ADM Allen. Recommend tomorrow
vice today, so we could prepare the folks.
I would hope we could cover these 6 topics in an hour (I hope; if we could build in a little more time for O&A, that
would be helpful).
FJS
F. J. Sturm
U.S. Coast Guard
francis.j.sturm
20f4
9/27/2010 2: 13 PM
RE: URGENT: Mtg ofIASG mbrs with NIe on Tuesday morning
009887

Sent: Sunday, July 18,20105:39 PM
Cc: Grawe, William

Cc: Grawe, William
ADM Allen will be in town on Monday and Tuesday. I spoke to his EA, Connie Rook, on Friday afternoon. She
asked if we might want to set aside some of the Admiral's time to meet with the IASG and get updates on
appropriate topics.
Bill and I discussed and traded ideas this weekend. Below is a list of ideas that Bill captured after our
discussion.
Suggested list:
1. Claims/IST.. .. Tracy/JanlDeb .... what is the latest on implementing the Feinberg prototcol and shifting from BP
claims centers.
2. Community Relations .... Juliette/Drew ... how are the teams functioning now with the W/H players in place.
3. Seafood Testing .... RADM G/Ralph... how does the protocol work ... challenges with reopening closed areas.
4. FRTG - (Steve/Mark) how are we dOing with the oil budgeLexplain what areas in the budget are weaker
than others and efforts underway to tighen those up.
4. PhYSical Countermeasures - (Dave Ormes/Russ) .... explain where we are with ACOE permitting and NWP 20.
5. IATAP..... (AustinlShannon) .... what are the challenges with operationalizing IATAP items and getting the
non-IATAP items into the logistics group for either FOSC or BP purchasing ...
6. Other Countermeasures (Oave/Joe/BiIi/Frank) .... vis on the other projects that are coming into the team for
review from CEQNP ... how we are reviewing them.
Before we go back to Connie with this list, we wanted to bounce the idea off of you. Please let us know if you
agree with the concept, and if you have any other topiCS we should add to the list.
Bill will be out on Monday for some med appts so we recommend setting this up for Tuesday. This will allow the
IASG reps to pull together their thoughts and prepare.
Frank
30f4
9/2712010 2: 13 PM
Follow up on Admiral Allen briefing today
2of2
009888
9/27/2010 2: 13 PM
RE: Dispersant Data Webinar F1.Ulding - Who pays???
009889
Subject: RE: Dispersant Data Webinar Funding - Who pays???

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:15:51 -0500
To: "Warren, Geoffrey CDR" <Geoffrey.J.Warren@uscg.mil>, "Berry, Troy LT"
<Troy.A.Berry@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: "Pond, Robert" <Robert.G.Pond@uscg.mil>, "Sturm, Francis"
<Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>, "Gleason, Joseph CDR" <Joseph.J.Gleason@uscg.mil>,
"Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>
Mark,
Do you think this webinar could fall under the existing NOAA SSC PRFA Scope of
work, be paid directly by NOAA, and reimbursed by NPFC to NOAA?
Bill
Message----CDR
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:08 PM
To: Grawe, Williami Berry, Troy LT
Cc: Pond, Roberti Sturm, Francis; Gleason, Joseph CDR; Brown, Baron CDR
Bill,
In the interest of time, Dr. Nancy Kinner and staff recommended we
without contract, knowing that they mayor may not get paid. UNH and CG
that pursuing funding may have mired ability to complete this interagency product
under time constraints. We had discussed with Mark Miller of NOAA that UNH has a
standing PRFA and that "may" be an option to fund it. Once again ... Dr. Kinner
was disinterested in discussing the funding or even a "formal scope of work"
until after the meeting. No nefarious reasons here. The spirit and product
provided by the UNH team was unmatched.
The data webinar has enabled a robust discussion that has positioned us to have a
platform to further discuss, if needed, dispersants as a response option. As the
dispersants issue has been overcome by events much of our forward leaning
is just that ... unless we go to max flow again and then we will be glad we
invested in this iterative response tool.
The cost as broken down in the attached document is roughly $20k.
a staff of 6 for a good portion of 1.5 weeks and travel for two.
This includes
R/
-Jawff.
-----Original
From: Grawe, William
To: Warren, Geof
CDRi Berry, Troy LT
Cc: Pond, Roberti Sturm, Francis; Gleason, Joseph CDR; Brown, Baron CDR
Jawff,
Please explain what the cost was and how it was contracted for.
paperwork signed with University of New Hampshire, ... etc?
1of4
Was any
9/27/20102:13 PM
RE: Dispersant Data Webinar Funding - Who pays???
009890
Thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message----From: Warren, Geoffrey CDR
To: Berry, Troy LT
Cc: Grawe, William; Pond, Robert
Subject: Dispersant Data Webinar Funding - Who pays???
LT
You will need to hash out the right way to fund this project .... This was a
NIC/NRT initiative. Monies should come from these sources if NPFC is unable to
provide support.
Here is why I believe OSLTF monies can/should be used:
The framework of the meeting was to establish information to enable dispersant
response policy decisions for the current spill incident and NOT future ones.
Unfortunately, since the use of dispersants has ceased (in almost all situations)
the use of this information has been overcome by events. But the intent of the
meeting when developed was to provide a tool for best response options for
current spill ... focusing on safety and efficacy.
I
don't believe OE funds would be appropriate ...
Let me know if you need additional background/scope information on this meeting.

R/
CDR Geoff "Jawff" Warren

-----Original Message----From: Berry, Troy LT
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:01 AM
To: Warren, Geoffrey CDR
Cc: Jones, Karen LCDR
Subject: FW: CRRC budget for webinar
CDR NPFC's initial reading is that we cannot use the OSLTF to pay for these costs.
Can someone in CG-5 pay for the webinar via OE funds?
vir
LT Berry, USCGR
-----Original Message----From: Hildebrand, Robert
To: Berry, Troy LT
Cc: Eastman, Timothy; Buie, Gregory; Abramson, Jonathan; Grawe, William
Subject: RE: CRRC budget for webinar
Troy:
This is a meeting, not a removal cost activity. Unless I am overruled on this,
this is not appropriate use of the OSLTF. This was just a meeting to collect
20f4
9/27/2010 2: 13 PM
RE: Dispersant Data Webinar Ftmding - Who pays???
009891
information on dispersant use above and below the surface and 'produce a report.
Any report that is compiled would be benefic~al in the future for other oil
spills, but this is strictly a research and data analysis meeting.
NOAA's PRFA is funding typical SSC activities and seafood surveillance project.
I do not see any connection under the NOAA PRFA.
Bob H.
Robert N. Hildebrand
Senior Project Manager, Team 3
(MSTCS, CW04, USCG, Retired - 30 Years)
NIMS ICS-351 Instructor
Certified Type 2 FSC
National Pollution Funds Center
4200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1000
-----Original Message----From: Berry, Troy LT

To: Hildebrand, Robert
Bob Is the attached within scope of the existing NOAA PRFA?
vir
Troy
-----Original Message----CDR
From: Warren,
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 2:40 PM
To: Berry, Troy LT
Cc: Berry, Troy
Troy,
Per our conversation .... here is the scope of work document.
Let me know what further information you may need.
I would also like to keep this vendor in the loop as to the status of
reimbursement .... So let me know what you find out so I can pass on ... OR ... you
can contact Kathy at e-mail below and copy me i f you prefer.
RI
CDR Geoff "Jawff" Warren
Htto:IIPugetsoundguardians.wordpress.com
30f4
9/27/20102:13 PM
RE: Dispersant Data Webinar F'LDlding - Who pays???
009892
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:37 AM
To: Warren, Geoffrey CDR
Subject: CRRC budget for webinar
@unh.edu]
Please review attached document and let me know if you have any questions, edits
or other such thoughts. Let's discuss this process.
Kathy Mandsager
Program Coordinator
Coastal Response Research Center
234 Gregg Hall, Colovos Rd
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824
DWH Dispersant
Content-Description: Data Webinar by
CRRC.PDF
Dispersant Data Webinar by CRRC.PDF

Content-Type:
Content-Encoding:
4 of 4
application/pdf
base64
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009893
UN IVERSITY of NEW HAMPSHIRE
Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Data Webinar

SCOPE OF WORK
The Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC/CSE), in conjunction with the
Interagency Solutions Group (lASG) - which includes representatives from U.S. Coast
Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Services, and
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - held an invitation only
webinar on July 13 th , 2010 to better determine what data is available on the
effectiveness and effects of subsurface and surface dispersant application in the
context of the efficacy and safety of dispersant use in the Deepwater Horizon
incident. This webinar aimed to identify: 1) What data exists on dispersant
effectiveness; 2) Who has the data; 3) Where the data resides; 4) What type of data
it is; 5) The spatial and temporal extent of the data; 6) Any gaps or inconsistencies
that exit in the data. This meeting was held for federal and state partners and
approximately 140 invited participants.
The Scope of Work for this meeting includes:
A series of conference calls with IASG representatives to determine the topics
to be covered, presenters, and potential invitees;
CRRC Program Coordinator, Kathy Mandsager was responsible for the
invitation process, communications and logistical management for this event;
Dr. Nancy E. Kinner served as the facilitator for the webinar and will continue
as lead to oversee, manage and direct this project;
Zachary Magdol, Research Engineer, traveled, participated and provided
support at USCG HQ for this meeting. He is also tasked drafting the final
report.
CRRC supplied 4 students to record the webinar discussion, questions and
presentation. These recorders and CRRC staff were located in Gregg Hall at
the University of l'Jew Hampshire recording the webinar proceedings which
will be used for the final report.
A draft of the final report will include:
Synopsis of data presented
Accessibility of data
Summary of ensuing discussion
The draft report will be submitted to Robert Pond, Geoffrey Warren and
Roberta Runge (IASG leads) for initial review. CRRC will incorporate their
potential edits and then re-submit the revised draft to the NRT for any final
edits and comments. After this final review, the report (pdf) will be
submitted to the IASG for distribution to webinar participants.
Gregg Hall. 35 Colovos Road. Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3534

Tel: 603-8620832 fax: 6038623957 http://www.crrc.unh.edu
009894
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
Salaries for CRRC staff involved in this scope of work include 1.5 weeks for Program
Coordinator (Kathy Mandsager), 3 weeks for Research Engineer (Zachary Magdo!), 1
week for Facilitator (Nancy Kinner) and 5 hours for 4 Recorders. The UNH fringe for
FY2011 is 44.4%. For faculty and part-time employees/students the partial fringe is
7.1%.
Travel for 2 CRRC staff to participate on-site at USCG HQ includes flight, lodging,
ground transportation and meal per diem for 1.5 days.
Miscellaneous expenses include final report preparation and electronic services
required to host this virtual webinar meeting and preparation on final documents.
The UNH F&A federally negotiated indirect rate for on-campus, Other Sponsored
Activity for FY2011 is 38.2 %.
Gregg Hall, 35 Colovos Road, Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3534

Tel: 603-862-0832 fax: 603-862-3957 http://www.crrc.unh.edu
009895

Budget Proposal for: DWH Dispersant Data Webinar
July 13, 2010
Administration Staff (2-Mandsager & Magdol)
Fringe 44.4%
Staff Faculty (Kinner)
Student Recorders (4)
Partial Fringe 7.1 %
Travel
Other
total admin
$
$
$
$
$
$
total travel
Staff travel (2)
Report Preparation
IT Services
total other
Sub Total
F&A Indirect Cost 38.2%
TOTAL to CRRC University of New Hampshire
3,955.23
',756.12
3,231.00
2,200.00
385.60
11,527.95
11,527.95
$
$
2,000.00
2,000.00 $
2,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
1,000.00
600.00
1,600.00 $
15,127.95
5,778.88
1,600.00
20,906.83
009896
Notes {for Internal Use Only)
Mandsage
Magdol
1369.05 1.5 weeks

2586.18 3 weeks
Kinner .....
..... ...1 V\lee~
4 students @ $11thr*5hoUrs / .
lodging/pc
1322.8.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Dispersant Data Webinar Funding - Who pays???]
009897
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Dispersant Data Webinar Funding - Who pays???]
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:54:06 -0400
Hey Mark, how are you doing? FYI - Tarpley asked me to come to Mobile on Friday. I got
here late Sunday night. Doing SCAT work. Very interesting. I am learning a lot. I return
home from Mobile on August 2nd.
I wanted to listen in to the night's ERD call, but I have a conflicting nightly SCAT team
meeting. I still plan to do the NIC from 8/6-8/10 unless you say otherwise.
So, the way CDR Warren described it is exactly as I heard it. Everyone was hot to trot to get
her in town to do the meeting so that the CG could use the data discovery as a way to affect
dispersant rate application. Geoff definitely considered it a response tool for this spill.
There was no clear delineation of how CRRC/Nancy was getting paid prior to the webinar.
Conner talked with Nancy on the day that he decided it was a good idea to follow through
wiith it. If I remember it correctly, he and Nancy discussed the previous conference (and
possibly having sufficient funds to cover her work??) and her not being concerned about
how the funding would occur. Bill Conner would have a better understanding of the verbal,
not written agreement.
Hope you're doing okay,
Jason
Mark Miller wrote:
I Jason,
I
i Was how CRRC was going to get paid figured out before the webinar?
II Mark
Subject:
i
, R E : Dispersant Data Webinar Funding - Who pays???
!I From: "Grawe, William" <William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:15:51 -0500
To: "Warren, Geoffrey CDR" <Geoffrey.J.Warren@uscg.mil>, "Berry, Troy LT'
! <Troy.ABerry@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To: "Warren, Geoffrey CDR" <Geoffrey.J.Warren@uscg.mil>, "Berry, Troy LT'
<Troy.ABerry@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: "Pond, Robert" <Robert.G.Pond@uscg.mil>, "Sturm, Francis"
<Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>, t1Gleason, Joseph CDR"
<Joseph.J. Gleason@uscg.mil>, "Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron. K. Brown@uscg.mil>
I
lof5
9/27/20102: 13 PM
Re: [Fwd: Fw: Re: oil budget tool]
009910
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Re: oil budget tool]

Date: Wed, 21 lui 2010 15:52:42 -0400
Sony - mechanical deanup is the term we use for skimmers. There doesn't appear to be any skimmed oil data until
day 39.
Mark
Sky Bristol wrote:
I Mark,
II
I'm out of the office this week. We have only the one value in tons for inland deanup. This was the only item
that the Coast Guard said they may receive periodically. There is a form field for any new reports that come in.
t <.(<----<.(<----<.
!
i
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
1 <.( <<<----<.( <<<----<.<<
I! On Jul 19, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Mark Miller wrote:

!
! Sky,
Just wanted to check with you for the mechanical deanup data. Is the data just missing?
Mark
I From: Dean Dale <

@genwest.com>
I
Date:
July
19,
2010
6:19:22
PM MDT
,
I
II
I
Hi Mark,
I ',' Here is your reminder.
1 I d
II
I
II
I
!
I
lof4
From: Dean Dale [mailto:d

@genwest.com]
To: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Sent: Fri, 16 lui 2010 12:39:37 -0700
d

@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:55:42 -0700
I
I
I
9/27/2010 2: 13 PM
009911
Dean Dale wrote:

Mark,
I was able to login with my NOAA email and USGS password to get on the site. I just can't find
the oil budget tool.
d

@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 201009:27:11 -0700
Hi Mark,
. I went to the USGS site for the oil budget tool, but couldn't find it. I did searches in esc
(Comprehensive Science catalog) and Science Base - catalog directories for "oil budget
tool" with no hits. can you provide me with more direction please? Thanks.
d
@genwest.com], Dean Dale

[mailto:
@genwest.com]
Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:12:09 -0700
I!
I
!; ,
I
!
!
,I I
I
I am not sure exactly what this entails but would like to check your availability? More
info to follow. Looks like it all take place in the Gulf.
i'
Not looking for an SSC. Just someone who has basic skimmer knbw~ebg
and who is not afraid to ask questions and get dirty. Folks will I
initially be mining data at the UAC and then will start making!fleid
..

To: Moore, David M.
ect: Re: FW: Skimmer Strike Team
r
20f4
9/27/20102:13 PM
009912
Re: [Fwd: Fw: Re: oil budgettool]
;,

that will tie me up most of the day. Let's talk later in the w~e~.!C n
you give me some background on what would be needed - that will he~p
identify the right person. The problem we may run into is that, i~
t
probably would be one of our SSCs who are completely booked. We ~hfl
mo
David M. wrote:
Mark,
skinuner efficiency issue.
Do you have someone in NOAA in mind!
this
effort?
David
-----Original Message----From: Amy.McElroy@uscg.mil [mailto:Amy.McElroy@uscg.miIJ
To: Moore, David M.; rolfe.jason@noaa.qov
Subject: RE: Skinuner Strike Team
Good Afternoon,
I did speak with MR. Pond while he was in NOLA. He was not ablb
to the FOSC about it due to time constraints. We have not id.' d t a; C

member to be on the team, yet either. I will bring this up: tomorfo
.1
j

Amy
30f4
9/27/20]02: 13 PM
009913

[mailto:prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov] On Behalf Of
M.

Amy - Were you able to speak with Bob Pond while he was
did he broach this topic with the FOSC? Do we have their
Has

Jason - Can you provide the name of and contact data for the,
person

..'
!
Even if we can't get people on the boats this week, would like' tpe
start mining whatever data they can from Houma command pos~ ~her~
Thanks,
David
David M. Moore
703-787-1637
david.moore@mms.gov
4of4
It
II
I
!
9/27/2010 2: 13 PM
009914
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Re: oil budget tool]

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:55:33 -0600
To: tlMark.W.Millertl <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
You'll have to check with CDR O'Brien on the values in the application. We've left the data entry process completely up
to the team from the NIC.
<.(<----<.(<----<.(<<<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
22
<.
----<.
On Jul 21, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Mark.W.Milier wrote:
I SOrry - mechanical cleanup is the term we use for skimmers. ,There doesn't appear to be any skimmed oil data until I
1day 39.
I Mark
!i Sky Bristol wrote:
I
<
!I I
Mark,
I'm out of the office this week. We have only the one value in tons for inland cleanup. This was the only item
I that the Coast Guard said they may receive periodically. There is a form field for any new reports that come
11
I I in.
If I <.----<.----<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
2
I.
! I
! <.
<----<.
On Jul 19, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Mark IVlilier wrote:
II
II
j
Sky,
Just wanted to check with you for the mechanical cleanup data. Is the data just missing?
Mark
From: Dean Dale <

@genwest.com>
Date: July 19, 20106:19:22 PM MDT
To: Mark.W.Miller@nQaa.gov
I
I
I
I
Hi Mark,
d
lof5
@genwest.com]
9/27/2010 2: 13 PM
009915
To: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:39:37 -0700
d
Ii
I'
I

@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:55:42 -0700
Dean Dale wrote:
Mark,
I was able to login with my NOAA email and USGS password to get on the site. I just can't
find the oil budget tool.

d
II
j
!
I
I
From: Mark.W.Milier [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

@genwest.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:27:11 -0700
,I !,
j
I
I
Hi Mark,
I went to the USGS site for the oil budget tool, but couldn't find it. I did searches in
esc (Comprehensive Science catalog) and Science Base - catalog directories for "oil
budget tool" with no hits. can you provide me with more direction please? Thanks.
d
i
I
I
II

@genwest.com], Dean Dale
[ mailto:
@genwest.com]
Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:12:09 -0700
Subject: Re: AN: Skimmer Strike Team
Dean,
II
I am not sure exactly what this entails but would like to check your availability? More
info to follow. Looks like it all take place in the Gulf.
I.
II
Mark
I
20f5
Mark,
Not looking for an
sse.
Just someone who has basic' skimmer
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009916
and who is not afraid to ask questions and get dirty. Folks! w~ll j
initially be mining data at the UAC and then will start makiing! f~eid
trips,t~ ~kimmer deployment , sites to get informatio~ on measpr~m~nt
capabl.ll.tl.es. Also some tn.ps offshore may be requl.red.
fl
11!
,
~
i
-----Original Message----From: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.qov]
To: Moore, David M.
'I!
Good to see you still connected. I have a dispersant webinar, TueSd~Ylj

that will tie me up most of the day. Let's talk later in the week.C~n
you give me some background on what would be needed - that will helPl
identify the right person. The problem we may run into is that' it mo t
probably would be one of our SSCs who are co~pletely booked. We Shall
<
l
I
Mark
II
David M. wrote:
II
I I'
!
II
I
I!
I
Mark,
Heard you are back. Jason said NOAA. was on board with a
Do you have someone in NOAA
effort?
David
-----Original Message----From: Amy .McElroy@uscg.mil [mail to : Amy . McElroy@uscg.milL
Good Afternoon,
I did speak with MR. Pond while he was in NOLA. He was
30fS
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009917
I_to the FOSC about it due to time constraints. We have

Lmember to be on the team, yet either. I will bring this

Amy
,
j
I !
!I II
I
-----Original Message----From: prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.qov

[mailto:prvs=80258de35=David.Moore@mms.gov] On Behalf Of 1~<'nT-~.
II
II II
l
!I
I! I
I
I
I

To: McElroy, Amy LTi rolfe.jason@noaa.gov
Amy - Were you able to speak with Bob Pond while he was at
did he broach this topic with the FOSC? Do we have
the"
.- \ I !
sUPPfrr" I
UAC!
ard

Jason - Can you provide the name of and contact data for the, NOAA
I
I

Even if we can't get people on the boats this week, wou~d
start mining whatever data they can from Houma command
Thanks,
David
David M. Moore
703-787-1637
david.moore@mms.gov
II
40f5
9/27/20102:13 PM
50f5
009918
9/27/20102:13 PM
009919
Re: FW: Oil Budget in the news
Subject: Re: FW: Oil Budget in the news

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 201022:09:25 -0400
CC: "O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, mgarcia@usgs.gov, "Valette-Silver,
Nathaliell <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>, Stephen E Hammond
<sehammon@usgs.gov>, Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
CMDR Brown,
No Sir. USGS did not release this information. I believe that USCG released it based on an
inquiry at a Governor's call last week. They wanted to see/use the Oil Budget Tool. The
Situation Unit came to USGS to determine what state the tool was in and asked if it could be
released. We reminded them that the tool was not ours to release. That decision belongs to
USCG. Although I did not see the actual outcome at the time, I believe that a tabluar report
from the oil budget tool was provided to the Governors who were interested. I learned this from
a conversation with Commander Sean O'Brien. I recommend that you contact him to obtain
the details.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
)
-----Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil wrote: ----To: "Hammon, Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov> .
Date: 07/21/2010 06:07PM
cc: <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, "Valette-Silver, Nathalie" <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>
Subject: FW: Oil Budget in the news
Stephen,
Did the FRTG, Dr McNutt or any other authority/expert release or post the oil
budget info?
-----Original Message----From: Moland, Mark CDR

To: Gautier, Peter CAPTi Hubble, Solangei Rooke, Connie
Cc: O'Brien, Sean CDR; Lowe,' Steve CDR; Brown, Baron CDR; Hammon, Stevei Offutt,
Todd CDR; Kiefer, Kevin CAPT
10f2
9/27/20102:13 PM
Re: FW: Oil Budget in the news
009920
Captain,
FYSA ... Gov Jindal used the Oil Budget during his interview yesterday
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010 107
/gov bobby jindal tallies 67 mi.html
CDR Mark Moland
NIC- DC IGA
-----Original Message----From: Lauer, Daniel LCDR

To: Moland, Mark CDR
Mark,
FYI, the Governor requested an updated oil budget report yesterday and it looks
like he then used it for an interview with the Times Picayune.
vir
Dan
From: Munn, Chrysanthe [mailto:Chrysanthe.Munn@bp.com]

Sent: Wed 7/21/2010 9:14 AM
To: Lauer, Daniel LCDR
Subject: Oil Budget in the news
h
/www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010 107
Igov bobby jindal tallies 67 mi.html <http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill
/index.ssf/2010/07/gov bobby jindal tallies 67 mi.html>
Here ya go!
Chrysanthe Munn
2of2
9/27/20102: 13 PM
[Fwd: Re: FW: Oil Budget in the news]
009921
Subject: [Fwd: Re: FW: Oil Budget in the news]

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 201022:18:54 -0400
To: "Parsons, Roger" <Roger.l.Parsons@uscg.mil>, "Gautier, Peter CAPT'
<Peter. W. Gautier@uscg.dhs.gov>
CC: William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Roger and Pete,
Does this impact our request to use the estimate from the Oil Budget Tool for our
Long Term Modeling document? The document is in the final stages of NOAA review
and is about to be put into the clearance process.
Mark

From: Stephen E Hammond <seharnmon@usgs.gov>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:09:25 -0400
Nathalie" <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>, Stephen E Hammond
CMDR Brown,
the details.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
)
-----Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil wrote: ----To: "Hammon, Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Date: 07/21/2010 06:07PM
cc: <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, "Valette-Sllver, Nathalie" <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>
lof3
9/27/20102:13 PM
009922

Stephen,
budget info?
NIC-IASG

To: Gautier, Peter CAPT; Hubble, Solange; Rooke,Connie
Cc: O'Brien, Sean CDRi Lowe, Steve CDR; Brown, Baron CDRi Hammon, Steve; Offutt,
Captain,
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07
CDR Mark Moland
NIC- DC IGA

Mark,
FYI, the Governor requested an updated oil budget report
erday and it looks
vir
Dan
From: Munn, Chrysanthe [mailto:Chrysanthe.Munn@bp.com]

Sent: Wed 7/21/2010 9:14 AM
.http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07
,/gov bobby jindal tallies 67 mi.html <http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill
,/index.ssf/2010/07/gov bobby jindal tallies 67 mi.html>
Here ya go!
Chrysanthe Munn
2of3
9/27/2010 2: 13 PM
009923
Re: FW: Oil Budget in the news.eml Content-Type:

message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
30f3
?/27/20102:13 PM
009924
Subject: [Fwd: Re: FW: Oil Budget in the news]

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 201022:27:55 -0400
To: _NOS ORR HAZMAT SSC <nos.orr.hazmat.ssc@noaa.gov>, Kate Clark
<Kate. Clark@noaa.gov>
FYI
Kate please pass on to appropriate ARD folks.
Mark

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 201022:09:25 -0400
Nathalie" <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>, Stephen E Hammond
CMDR Brown,
the details.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
-----Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil wrote: ----To: "Hammon, Steve" <sehammon@usgs.gov>

Date: 07/21/2010 06:07PM
cc: <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, "Valette-Silver, Nathalie" <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>
Stephen,
lof3
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009925
budget info?
NIC-IASG
202-372-1721

To: Gautier, Peter CAPT; Hubble, Solange; Rooke, Connie
Cc: O'Brien, Sean CDR; Lowe, Steve CDR; Brown, Baron CDR; Hammon, Steve; Offutt,
Captain,
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07
CDR Mark Moland

NIC- DC IGA
Desk: 202-372-1715
Cell: 901-833-0345

Mark,
FYI, the Governor requested an updated oil budget report yesterday and it looks
vir
Dan
From: Munn, Chrysanthe [mailto:Chrysanthe.Munn@bp.comj

Sent: Wed 7/21/2010 9:14 AM
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spil1/index.ssf/20l0/07
,/gov bobby jindal tallies 67 mi.html <http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill
,/index.ssf/20l0/07/gov bobby jindal tallies 67 mi.html>
Here ya go!
Chrysanthe Munn
20f3
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009926
[Fwd: RE: FW: Oil Budget in the news]
Subject: [Fwd: RE: FW: Oil Budget in the news]

From: "Mark.W.MiUer" <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov.>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul2010 07:49:13 -0400
To: _NOS ORR HAZMAT SSC <nos.orr.hazmatssC@noaa.gov.>, Kate Clark <Kate.CIi:lrk@noaa.gov.>
Pennission granted for Jindal access.
---- Original Message - Subject:RE: FW: Oil Budget in the news .
Date:Thu, 22 Jul2010 06:31:05 -0400
From:O'Brien, Sean CDR <SeanXO'Brien@uscg,mil>
To:Hammon, Steve <sehammon@usgs,gov.>. Brown, Baron CDR <Baron.KBrown@uscg.mil>
CC:Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov.>. "Valette-Silver. Nathalie" <NathalieValette-Silver@noaa.gov.>. "Hammon, Steve"
<sehammon@usgs.gov.>. Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark,WMiller@noaa.gov.>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov.>
References:<OFFFB8E715FE7444BB840F4289A71 0870842CAA1@eme-emb-m-501 .main.ads. uscg. mil> <OF7706COC6.0CF33A21ON85257768.000BD96A-85257768.000BD978@usgs,gov.>
Baron:
Governors get the oil budget tool i f they request it via their LNO. Conversation that occurred last week with RADM Neffenqer and the Governe
LCDR Daniel Lauer (LNO-lJI) gets the oil budget tool and has approval to show Governor Jindal.
Reg-ards,
Sean 0lBrien, COR

(202) 372-1710
574-4650
(716)
(e)
-----Original Messaqe----From: sehammor,@uSCfS.QOV Imailto:sehammon@u$O's.govj

Cc: O'Brien, Sean CDR; Martha Garciai Valette-Silver, Nathaliei Hammon, Stevei Mar}.; Miller - NOAA; Sky Bristol
CMDR Brown,
No Sir.
USGS did not release this information.
I believe that USCG released it based on an inquiry at a Governor 1 s call last week.
They wa
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
US Geological survey
Nat ional Geospatial Program
Reston, VA
-----Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil
wro~e:
-----
To: tlHal'tl1'nOn, Steve" <sehamrt'lon@usas.qov>
From: uSrown, Baron CDRtI <Baron.K,Brown@uscq.mil>

Date: 07/21/2010 06:07PM
cc: <mqarcia@usgs ~ aov>, "Valet te-$il ver, Nathalie" <Nathal i e. Va lette-Silver@noaa.gov>
Stephen,
Did the fRTG, Dr McNutt or any other authoritylexpert release or post the oil budget info?
CDR Saron Brown, USCG
NIC-IASe;
202-372-1721

To; Gautier, Peter CAPT; Hubble, Solange; Rooke, Connie
Cc: O'Brien, Sean CDR; Lowe, Steve CDR; Brown, Baron CDR; Hammon, Steve: Offutt, Todd CDR; Kiefer, Kevin CAPT
Subj act: FW: Oil 6udget in the news
Captain,
FYSA . Gov Jindal used the Oil Budget during his interview yesterday
http://www.nola.com/ne.... /gulf-o; I-spilll index. s.U201 01 07 (gov bobby j indal tal.li as 67 rn;. html
CDR Mark Moland
NIC- DC IGA
Desk: 202-372-1715
Cell: 901-833-0345
-----Original Messsge----From: Lauer, Daniel LeOR

lof2
9/27/20102:13 PM
[Fwd: RE: FW: Oil Budget in the news}
009927
Mark/
FYI, the Governor requested an updated oil budget report yesterday and it looks like he then used it for an interview with the Times
vir
Dan
From: Munn, Chrysanthe [mailto:Chrysanthe.Munn@bp.com)
Sent: Wed 7121/2010 ~:14 AM

ht:to~
/ /www ~ nola. core/news/aulf-oil-sDill / index. 55 f 1201 0/07 /gov bobby .; indal tallles 67 mi. html <http!/ /www.nola.com/news/ O'ulf-oi I-spil
Here yalgo!
Chrysan the Munn
2of2
9/27/20102:13 PM
RE: NIC RFI: Oil Budget Surmnary
009928
Subject: RE: NIC RFI: Oil Budget Summary

Date: Thu, 22 Jul2010 05:44:51 -0700
To: Connie.Rooke@dhs.gov, "O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.dhs.gov>,
"Rooke, Connie" <connie.rooke@dhs.gov>, "Osetek, Jennifer LTJG"
<Jennifer.D.Osetek@uscg.dhs.gov>, "Baylor, Dana YN2" <Dana.J.Baylor@uscg.dhs.gov>,
"Herrera, Ashina YN2" <Ashina.M.Herrera@uscg.dhs.gov>, "Hubble, Solange"
<Solange.O.Hubble@uscg.dhs.gov>, NIC-PROD-1 <NIC-PROD-1@uscg.dhs.gov>, "Worst,
Nicholas LT" <Nicholas.S.Worst@uscg.dhs.gov>. Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, "Grawe,
William" <William.RGrawe@uscg.dhs.gov>, "Sturm, Francis"
<Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.dhs.gov>, "Gleason, Joseph CDR"
<Joseph.J.Gleason@uscg.dhs.gov>, "Brown, Baron CDR"
<Baron.K.Brown@uscg.dhs.gov>
CC: "Kiefer, Kevin CAPT' <Kevin.C.Kiefer@uscg.dhs.gov>, "Gautier, Peter CAPT'
<Peter.W.Gautier@uscg.dhs.gov>, "Arguin, Wayne CDR"
<Wayne. RArguin@uscg.dhs.gov>
CDR,
Bill Grawe and Frank Sturm briefed this to the DNIC this morning, and NOAA rep
Mark Miller can provide more insight on this. He did confirm that it came from
his agency, but the facts behind the chart are still emerging. We'll advise as
soon as we have more info on it.
NIC-IASG
202-372-1721
-----Original
From: Connie.Rooke@dhs.gov [mailto:Connie.Rooke@dhs.gov)
To: 0" Brien, Sean CDR; Rooke, Connie; Osetek, Jennifer LTJG; Baylor, Dana YN2;
Herrera, Ashina YN2; Hubble, Solangei NIC-PROD-l; Worst, Nicholas LTi Grawe,
William; Sturm, Francis; Gleason, Joseph CDR; Brown, Baron CDR
Cc: Kiefer, Kevin CAPT; Gautier, Peter CAPT; Arguin, Wayne CDR
Subject: NIC RFI: Oil Budget Summary
Adm Allen would like to know if and how the members of the FRTG are supporting
this data collection. Need to know the scientist are behind it before we can
socialize this.
Vr,
CDR Connie Rooke, USCG
Executive Assistant to the"NIC

From: O'Brien, Sean CDR <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.dhs.gov>
To: Rooke, Connie M <Connie.Rooke@dhs.gov>; Osetek, Jennifer "LTJG; Baylor, Dana
YN2; Herrera, Ashina YN2: Hubble, Solange; NIC-PROD-li O'Brien, Sean CDR; Rooke,
Connie <Connie.Rooke@dhs.gov>: Worst, Nicholas LT
Sent: Thu Jul 22 08:22:29 2010
Subject: RE: Oil Budget Summary
Connie:
Output as of 20 Jul is attached.
1 of2
We'll send you 21 Jul output once USGS removes
9/27/20102: 13 PM
RE: NIC RFI: Oil Budget Summary
009929
lock feature.
Numbers inputted into the tool come from at-a-glance report (UAC).
Tool was updated to reflect zero flow, retro to 15 July (1422).
Reports are still titled with high flow (60,000 bbls/day) and low flow (35,000
bbls/day) which at some point we'll need to reference no flow as of 16 July.
Simplified assumptions (algorithms are somewhat complex with statistics
incorporated into the tool):
-skimming ops: 20% recovery rate.
-sub-sea dispersants: 20:1 (gallons of oil to gallon of dispersant)
-surface dispersants: 4:1 (gallons of oil to gallon of dispersant)
-evaporated/dissolved: 35-38% range (freshly surfaced oil): 6-4% range (aged oil)
vir
Sean
Sean O'Brien, CDR
cl
-----Original Message----From: Connie.Rooke@dhs.gov [mailto:Connie.Rooke@dhs.gov]
To: Osetek, Jennifer LTJG: Baylor, Dana YN2: Herrera, Ashina YN2: Hubble,
Solangei NIC-PROD-li O'Brien, Sean CDRi Rooke, Connie; Worst, Nicholas LT
Subject: Re: Oil Budget Summary
Thank you ... We were looking for it this morning. Please send when it is
ready. Can you also in the text of the email provide a para that explains where
we get the numbers. Thank you!
Vr,
CDR Connie Rooke, USCG
Executive

From: Osetek, Jennifer LTJG <Jennifer.D.Osetek@uscg.dhs.gov>
To: Baylor, Dana YN2; Herrera, Ashina YN2i Hubble, Solangei NIC-PROD-1: O'Brien,
Sean CDR: Rooke, Connie <Connie.Rooke@dhs.gov>: Worst, Nicholas LT
Sent: Thu Jul 22 07:48:37 2010
Subject: Oil Budget Summary
Good morning. There is a technical issue with the oil budget summary this
morning. As soon as the site is back up, I will be sending the updated
information out. I apologize for the delay.
Vr,
LTJG Jennifer Osetek

Deepwater Horizon
Production Unit
2of2
9/27/20102:13 PM
009931
Fw: Oil Budget Tool gets high praise - ACTION by 3:30PM today
and NOAA would like this to make the brief today, if possible. I need a l-pager cleared by
USGS and the NIC and ready to push forward by 3:30pm today. I'll grease the skids here.
Barbara Wainman, if you could have folks from you shop on standby to help Sky, that would be
outstanding.
I'm available here if you need me.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
20f2
9/27/20102: 13 PM
009934
Fw: Re: Oil Budget Tool gets high praise - ACTION by 3:30PM today
Deepwoter Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident OU Budget
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93)
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 ban-els/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93)
DeepwaterHorizon_briefing 7-22-10.docx
C t tT
.
on en - ype.
DeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic2.png
30f4
application/vnd.openxmlfonnats-
IContent~Type:
9/27/20102:13 PM
009935
Fw: Re: Oil Budget Tool gets high praise - ACTION by 3:30PM today
- OeepwaterHolizon_bliefing_schematic.docx - - -
..
'/
Content-T
.
application/vnd.openxmlformatsloeepwaterHOrizon_briefing_SChematic.docx
ype.
officedocument.wordprocessingmJ.document ,
I
,
I
I
.1
4of4
9/27/20102:13 PM
009936
Deepwater Horizon MC252 GulfIncident Oil Budget

Synopsis: In collaboration with the USCG, NOM, and NIST, the USGS has developed a Web
application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget, that allows
comprehensive tracking and graphical display of the daily and cumulative oil budget in the
Gulf.
Since the April 20, 2010, blowout and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oildrilling rig, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been actively involved with the National
Incident Command Center, helping to inform decisions in response to the ensuing oil spill.
The USGS is collaborating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOM), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to provide scientific and technical expertise to aid the oil spill management and
recovery effort. In particular, USGS science staff participate in a Flow Rate Technical Group
established and Jed by the USGS Director, Dr. Marcia McNutt, to calculate the discharge rates
and calculate an overall mass balance of oil given different mitigation and cleanup methods.
The USGS developed a Web application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident
Oil Budget, to track the discharged oil and results of subsequent processes that affect oil
volumes in the Gulf. Secure Web architecture and a rapid application development process,
Instituted for other Web-based applications used by USGS scientists, was used to construct
the Oil Budget application, synthesizing information collected and maintained by the USCG.
The application offers a basic user interface for daily data entry and reporting, allowing
rapid visualization of oil volumes in the Gulf.
USGS, NOM, NIST, and USCG scientists and logistics personnel collaborate to ensure that
the oil tracking application supports absolute data integrity, comprehensive data entry and
management, and simple Web access, eliminating the need for specialized software. The
application allows:

improved information becomes available;
Dynamic creation of graphs showing modeled low flow rate/maximum removal and
high flow rate/minimum removal scenarios;
Incorporation of succinct descriptions, including assumptions and factors used for
calculations such as amount of oil burned, skimmed, or remained unaffected, in the
online application and printed reports; and
Generation of executive summaries, showing the most up-to-date calculated daily
and cumulative values.
The USGS team continues to provide technical support and introduce incremental
improvements to the Oil Budget tool as new information becomes available and desired
capabilities are identified. Based on the rapid response to this incident, the USGS is poised
to apply extensive scientific and technical expertise to benefit other environmental
emergencies.
009937
Daily actions by
incident command
personnel
Data and the oil

budget model ..
Periodic update by
Assumption and
authorized personnel factor review by
NOAA
Update rates,
estimates,
assumptions, and
other supporting
figures
Input Daily Values
Data inputs rates,

estimates,
assumptions, and
supporting figures
data inputs,
calculations, and
assumptions
"Oil Budget
Model"
CalcJlation
based on Oil
Budget Formula
Technical Support (single, secure Web application)
Scientific Support
Oil Budget Tool
009938

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:45:47 -0400
To: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Robert Pavia <Robert.Pavia@noaa.gov>
Mark,
Can you grant us (Bob and me) access to the Oil Budget Tool?
thanks
Steve
1 of I
9/27/20102:13 PM
009939
BackgrOl.md Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
Subject: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool

Date: Thu, 22 Jul2010 15:49:35 -0400
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the background information for the pie chart developed for the What Next document.
In order to initialize our model for the long-term modeling analysis we used the Oil Budget tool NOAA helped USGS to
develop. The Oil Budget tool (see attached screen dump) uses two scenarios to estimate oil remaining (floating on the
surface) - one based on the low flow estimate of the FRTG (35,000 bbls/day) and one based on the high flow estimate
(60,000 bbls/day). For our model initialization we used the estimated oil remaining on July 15 (500,000 bbls) which was
the date that the well was Shut-in using the low flow scenario. The pie chart is made of the cumulative removals and
remaining oil percentages for that date (see numbers below). The other set of removal and remaining numbers that
appeared in the brief looked to be from the Oil Budget tool for July 22 from the high flow scenario.
iCategory
IRemaining
IDirect Recovery
[Low Flow July 15
r
[
!Natu ral Dispersion
480,000
IHigh Flow July 22
16%
1,470,000
28%
823,000
16%
820,000
27%
400,000
13%
826,000
670,000
22%
1,346,000
*
2%
:.
iEvaporated
I'"
iSkimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
iBurned
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
iChemically Dispersed
340,000 11%
344,000
* These three categories are displayed as one element in the Tool and have a combined total of 48%
For the second action item from this mornings call I am working with USGS to prepare a short briefing document (1
pager) for the Oil Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time but does not have an expected availability.
RADM Neffenger mentioned that he would be verbally briefing the tool this evening.
DeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic2.png-----------------------------
10f2
9/27/20102:14 PM
BackgrolDld Infonnation on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
De9pwa~r
009940
Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) Through July 21 (Oay 931
,:~ Pr 01
Low Flow Scenario (35.000 barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93) c" P<,rt
Cumulawc OIS:lO'SII>:l11 of Oil
Ct,art Information
.~I
. . . .... . .
..
32.640\Ol'lIl
Content-Type:
image/png I
DeepwaterHorizon briefing schematic2.png C
E
d'
b e64
ontent- nco m9: as
II
2of2
9/27/20102:14 PM
Re: Oil Budget Tool
009941

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:50:59 -0400
To: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>
CC: Robert Pavia <Robert.Pavia@noaa.gov>
USGS manages the site but are incredibly responsive. You should get an email
within 24 hours with your user name and PW.
i
Mark,
I
I
I
Can you grant us (Bob and me) access to the Oil Budget Tool?
thanks
I Steve
I
] of]
9/27/20102:14 PM
009942
Re: Oil Budget Tool

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:53:02 -0400
excellent thanks Mark (and Steve H.!)
Steve
manages the site but are incredibly responsive. You should get an email
within 24 hours with your user name and PW.
! USGS
II
I,
!
I!I!
Can you grant us
!~ 11 thanks
!I
Steve
1 of 1
Mark,
(Bob and me) access to the Oil Budget Tool?
I!
, "
9/27/20102: 14 PM
Fw: Final version of daily oil budget tool
009943
Subject: Fw: Final version of daily oil budget tool

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:19:13 -0400
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
-----Forwarded by Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI on 07/22/2010 04:18PM ----To: Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI@USGS

From: Anne-Berry Wade/DO/USGS/DOI
Date: 07/22/2010 04:16PM
cc: Clarice E Ransom/DO/USGS/DOI@USGS
Subject: Final version of daily oil budget tool
Here is the final revised version.
A.B. Wade
Public Affairs Officer (Acting)
gion issues contact Hannah Hamilton
****************************************************
Stephen E Hammond---07/22/2010 04:04:14 PM---Stephen E. Hammond US Geological Survey
From:
Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI
To:
Clarice E Ransom/DO/USGS/DOI@USGS
Cc:
Anne-Berry Wade/DO/USGS/DOI@USGS
Date:
07/22/201004:04 PM
Subject:Re: Re-Write
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
-----Clarice E Ransom/DO/USGS/DOI wrote: ----To: Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI@USGS

From: Clarice E Ransom/DO/USGS/DOI
Date: 07/22/2010 03:38PM
cc: Anne-Berry Wade/DO/USGS/DOI@USGS
Subject: Re-Write
Steve:
lof2
9/27/20102:14 PM
Fw: Final version of daily oil budget tool
009944
Here is a re-written draft.

Sincerely,
Clarice Nassif Ransom
Public Affairs Specialist
Office of Communications
www.usgs.gov
[attachment "OeepwaterHorizon_briefing 7-22-10.docx" removed by Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI][attachment
"DeepwaterHorizon oil buget tool briefing 7-22-10.docx" deleted by Anne-Berry Wade/DO/USGS/DOI]
DeepwaterHorizon oil buget tool briefing 7-22-10.docx
2of2
t tT
-I
application/vnd.openxmlformats-
on en - ype.
Content-Encoding: base64.
9/27/2010 2:14 PM
009945
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulflncident Oil Budget

Synopsis: In collaboration with the USCG, NOAA, and NIST, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has
Gulf.
Federal personnel collaborated to ensure thatthe oil budgettool supports absolute data integrity,
speCialized software. The tool offers a basic user interface for daily data entry and reporting,

cumulative values.
printed reports.
Minimum removal scenarios. The skimmed oil estimate is very rough. The actual amount of skimmed oil
Standards and Technology (NIST) to provide scientific and technical expertise to aid the oil spill
Web-based applications used by USGS scientists, was used to construct the Oil Budget application,
009946
USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up
Subject: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:45:06 0400
To: "Grawe, William" <William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil>
CC: "Sturm, Francis" <Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>, "Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>,
"O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
"Offutt, Todd CDR" <Todd.J.Offutt@uscg.mil>, Stephen E Hammond <:sehammon@usgs.gov>
Bill,
It was close but we made it. Here is the one page summary of the oil budget tool and a pdf of the tool's
output. Thanks for your help and guidance today.
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
Content-Type:
application/pdf
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget background 20100721.pdf C
E
d'
b
64
ontent- nco mg: ase
-DeepwaterHorizon oil bugettool briefing 7-22-10 Flnal.doc1 Content-Type:

application/msword
DeepwaterHorizon oil buget tool briefing 72210 Flnal.doc i C
.
b
64
i ontent-Encodmg: ase
---
1 of 1
9/27/2010 2:14 PM
009947

Inland Recovery

Application operated by t!1e U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
009948
I
1,750,0001
11
1,500,000 J
1,250,000 I
-CD
0
:to..
:to..
1,000,000
C'CS
.c
750,000
500,000
.250,000
0
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Application operat~d bythe U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
009949

Inland ReCovery

ApplIcation operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
009950
700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
-...
...co
0
Q)
Jl
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,00~ J
30-Ap r
1S-May
Expected Value -
30-May
14-Jun
29-Jun
14-Jul

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/22/201001 :39 PI\III\IIDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the NationaJ
009951
Reference Notes


The Cumulative Disposition of Oil"Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
reference material.'
Dispersant Used
Burned
cumulative totals.

009952

Recovered via RITI and Top Hat

-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purposell dosage of 20:1 used
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/22/201001 :39 PM MDT.
009953
Dispersed Naturally
-1\10 natural surface dispersion assumed

more information.
Evaporation is calculated differently for "'fresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/22/201001 :39 PM MDT.
009954
Discharged
Background
On June 15,2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was
improved estimate is based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut
ArtAA data which

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07/2212010 01 :39 PM MDT.
009955
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulflncident Oil Budget
Survey (USGS) has

Gulf.
Synopsis: In collaboration with the USCG, NOAA, and NIST, the U.S. Geological
Federal personnel collaborated to ensure that the oil budget tool supports absolute data integrity,
spedalized software. The too] offers a basic user interface for daily data entry and reporting,
National Inddent Command personnel to input daily variables;

cumulative values.
printed reports.
Minimum removal scenarios. The skimmed oil estimate is vety rough. The actual amount of skimmed oil
Standards and Technology (NIST) to provide scientific and technical expertise to aid the oil spill
Web-based applications used by USGS scientists, was used to constructthe Oil Budget application,

Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 40 - FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 40 - FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Flo,w Sicen;ario(60 .'D~O;O b,srrels/d,ay) .. Thro;uigh July 2.

'. All units in barrels. Glic,k raw .Iabel for

Oil Budget Tool Access - Additional NOAA

Oil Budget Tool

Deepwater Horizon NC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Available for Recovery

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Deepwater Horizon NC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

* All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Recovered via RITT and Top Hat

Available for Recovery

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

* All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 26 (Day 98)

Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds 1

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Through July 26 (Day 98)

All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident 011 Budget

Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 26 (Day 98)

Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining of the Surface

Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-252 - Cumulative Disposition of Oil

Recovered via RITT and Top Hat

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Available for Recovery

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

OIL BUDGET (Best Estimate) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

. . Dispersed Naturally 110,434

10% by volume of surface oil

.....;;.;..:;;.. ...;.;,.'i.;, ...,;.;>~;~~' ~::.. !,;;..;:,;.:.:.....:. ~.~ ~ __ .;.,

.'-:".;-:-"'-, ~ ,7: -:7 ~:7,'~~.T:'~,~ ::~~--:- ~

10% of water collected is oil

Based on surface area and thickness calculations

Surface: oil dispersed dispersant X 3

5% of oily solid waste is oil

30% per volume of available surface oil

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

All unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

Government Estimates - Through August 11 (Day 114)

Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds

Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining on the

Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-2S2 - Oil Budget

Previous Fixed Flow Rate

Recovered via RIIT and Top Hat

Available for Recovery

Paper ID # 210, 1999 International Oil Spill Conference

QUANTIFICATION OF NET ENVIRONMENTAL

ABSTRACT: Net Environmental Benefit Analysis

concentrations under variously treated slicks can be

Different levels of NEBA

It is proposed that NEBA can be applied at three main

;i;,::' ;'. ::;i~j!Jtaer'1~~3\::;; ',,;' ~.j lis'~f1fl)jt?),,: '. :1:'EXm~ra~deZJ?~~9;;:

:~::;i:~:~S:::;:i~n!::~:ee ,t A~~fii':',;;~esponse';~:AiJiilij ;'~t:Voifik1~e ;j~~tlJ'