434

A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms

for the Salish Sea and the Lower Fraser River

Aurelien Hospital1*, James A. Stronach1 and Jordan Matthieu1

1
Tetra Tech EBA Inc.
Water and Marine Engineering Practise
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
*aurelien.hospital@tetratech.com

Abstract
Over the past few years, several in-depth studies have been conducted to characterize
the behavior of diluted bitumen in aquatic environments. The Kalamazoo River spill in
Michigan, which occurred in a flooded river environment, showed that the interaction between
oil and organic/inorganic particulates could be a significant factor in the fate of spilled dilbit
under specific circumstances. All studies show that sufficient particulate matter, oil and turbulent
energy are necessary to form such agglomerates. Some studies such as Environment Canada’s
2013 report (2013) have focused on the mechanism of oil-particulate formation using a likely
upper bound for sediment concentrations and energy levels that are often higher than what can be
found in most natural habitats. This paper investigates the propensity for oil-mineral aggregate
(OMA) formation in the Lower Fraser River and the Salish Sea, particular the Fuca-Georgia
Strait system, located on the South-West coast of Canada.
The paper begins with a review of the various physical experiments that have been
conducted to characterize oil and sediment interaction. Following sections provide a
complementary understanding of natural conditions characterizing the study area: the Lower
Fraser River and the Salish Sea whereby a campaign of suspended sediment sampling was
conducted in the Lower Fraser River and its delta. The results of this campaign are combined
with 40 years of observations to characterize the suspended sediment content of the Fraser River.
Finally, characterization of the energy dissipation rate is provided at various locations within the
study area.
Natural suspended sediment concentrations and energy levels characteristic of the study
area are then compared to physical experiments characterizing oil and particulate interaction.
The ultimate purpose of this paper is to provide the connections between observations, theory
and experiments and to highlight potential areas for future research.

1 Introduction
Spilled oil is exposed to a range of weathering mechanisms in an aquatic environment.
During an unmitigated spill, the majority of the oil is either evaporated, dissolved or retained by
the shoreline; however, under appropriate conditions, the surface slick may become fragmented
and undergo vertical dispersion, resulting in the formation of oil droplets that have the potential
to interact with suspended particulate material. Suspended sediment, i.e. mineral fines primarily
clay and silt, and oil droplets may aggregate together and form agglomerates. The resultant
increase in density can lead to sinking of the agglomerate. Historical oil spills proved that, under
certain conditions, the interaction between oil and suspended sediment could represent a pathway
for the oil to reach the sea bed. As an example, during the 1993 Braer oil spill, near Shetland,
Scotland, it was estimated that as much as 30% (30,000 tons) of the spilled oil deposited in

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 435

subtidal sediments, a significant part due to interaction between oil and suspended sediment in a
very energetic environment.
Several terms have been used to describe this process. The most used term was first
mentioned by Lee et al. (1998), who classified the interaction of oil and mineral fines as Oil-
Mineral Aggregates (OMA). New terms have also been proposed more recently to reflect the
potential for oil to interact with particulates other than minerals: Oil-Particle Aggregates (OPAs)
and Oil-Suspended particulate matter Aggregates (OSAs). While the OPA term is the least
restrictive (coined by the Boufadel group while addressing the Kalamazoo spill in 2010), the
present paper focuses on OMA, since most of the studies have been conducted with minerals.
The most extensive information that currently exists is related to OMA.
Because the adhesive properties of oil are reduced through the formation of OMA, their
formation was initially considered an instrumental process in the natural recovery of oil spill-
impacted shorelines and in the efficacy of recovery cleanup techniques such as surf washing (Lee
and Stoffyn-Egli, 2001). However, during the 2010 Enbridge Line 6B diluted bitumen oil spill
into the Kalamazoo River, a low gradient lowland river, about 10% of the oil sunk to the river
bed and was difficult to recover (Fitzpatrick et al., 2015). It was hypothesized that the formation
of OMA increased the amount of oil that sunk.
Due to the formation of OMA in the Kalamazoo River, concerns have been raised about
the potential for OMA formation in the Fraser River and the Salish Sea, in light of oil tanker
traffic between Vancouver, BC, and the Pacific Ocean. The conditions during the Kalamazoo
spill, however, were very unique: the Kalamazoo River was in flood stage with a high suspended
organics content and agglomerates between diluted bitumen oil and organic debris appear to be
the cause of sunken oil. Waterman and Garcia’s experiments (2015) hindcast the Kalamazoo
conditions and were able to reproduce the sinking of the oil with abundant organic debris. This
set of experiments represents, so far, the only published hindcast of the Kalamazoo spill
conditions; even though it is understood that NR Can (Dr. Dettman, pers. Comm. during AMOP
2015 Conference) was planning to conduct similar hindcasts over the course of 2015 or 2016.
As a result of the Kalamazoo River spill and proposed pipeline and marine terminal
development in Burnaby, British Columbia, recent studies have been undertaken to better
understand the potential interaction between oil and sediment. This paper presents a literature
review of physical experiments followed by a characterization of conditions in the Salish Sea and
the Lower Fraser River. This characterization was conducted by means of two sampling
campaigns undertaken by the authors, augmented by a literature review of relevant natural
conditions in the Fraser River and the Salish Sea. The purpose of this study is to better quantify
the extent of OMA formation in these waters.

2 Literature Review for OMA Experiments

This section summarizes various OMA experiments that have been conducted in order
to characterize the formation mechanism and governing parameters. In the 1980s, Payne et al.
(1987) undertook laboratory experiments to quantify the rates and controlling factors important
in oil droplet and suspended particulate matter interactions and subsequent sedimentation. They
provided semi-empirical formulas for the modelling of OMA formation and calculation of
energy dissipation rate. Five main factors contribute to the formation of a stable OMA:
 Quantity, viscosity and dispersed droplet size of the oil (Khelifa et al., 2005). The
Royal Society of Canada (Lee et al., 2015) indicates that oils with a dynamic
viscosity greater than 500 cP (high viscosity) tend to bind to sediments rapidly. The
droplet size depends on the turbulent kinetic energy available;

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 436

 Turbulent energy in the aquatic environment (Cloutier et al., 2002), which

determines the oil droplet size and the collision rate between sediment particles and
oil droplets. A useful measure of the turbulent kinetic energy is the energy
dissipation rate (Hinze, 1955; Delvigne and Sweeney, 1988);
 Suspended sediment concentration (Ajijolaiya et al., 2006);
 Grain size of the suspended sediment particles (Ajijolaiya et al., 2006; Khelifa et al.,
2003b): OMA formation is more effective for smaller grain sizes, whereby the
sediment particles coat the oil particle;
 Temperature and salinity: higher salinities increase the amount of formation of
OMA (Khelifa et al., 2003a; Le Floch et al., 2002).
Most experiments have been conducted in a laboratory with various types of shakers
agitating a flask containing oil, water and sediment. While the concentration of each solute is
precisely known, the level of energy applied to the system is more difficult to quantify since the
energy input is specified as the number of shaker rounds per minute. Kaku et al. (2006 a, b) have
measured turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rates (ε) corresponding to various lab conditions: a
shaker rate of 50 rpm corresponds to an energy dissipation rate of roughly 2.10-4 m2/s3 regardless
of the type of flask (swirling or baffled). A shaker rate of 200 rpm corresponds to approximately
2.10-3 m2/s3 (swirling flask) and 1.10-1 m2/s3 (baffled flaks). He also suggested that a shaker rate
of 200 rpm yields energy levels higher than most open‐channel flow environments.
The National Academies of Science, engineering and medicine (NAS, 2015) argues that
one pathway for sedimentation during an oil spill is the formation of oil-particle aggregates
called OPAs. The term OPAs is used in the NAS report in order to encompass all kinds of
particulates, i.e. minerals and organics. Two major types of OPAs can be identified: “oil droplets
coated by small particles and oil trapped within or adhering to large particles”. The first type of
OPAs is more common and has been studied in some detail. The formation of aggregates
depends on viscosity, surface areas and the mineralogy of particles as well as the salinity of the
ambient water. It has been shown that salinity enhances the formation of OPAs, becoming
important at salinities as low as 1/200 that of seawater. The ultimate factor that determines the
fate of the OPA is its density in combination with the level of turbulence.
Khelifa et al. (2003a) illustrated the important effect of salinity in the stabilisation of
OMA. Their experiment considered 200 mg/L of mineral, mixed with 310 mg/L of oil into a
reciprocating shaker (160 rpm). Median size for the sediment was 0.6 µm. Increasing the salinity
from a baseline of distilled water resulted in increased OMA size and concentration. Le Floch et
al. (2002) used a reciprocating shaker (160 to 180 rpm) and sediment concentrations of 200 and
412 mg/L mixed with a 300 mg/L oil concentration: they found that the formation of OMA
depended strongly on salinity at low salinity values and tends to stabilize above a salinity of
about 2 psu.
Khelifa et al. (2005) showed that the formation of OMA is strongly dependent on the
kinetic energy dissipation rate. A sediment concentration of 250 mg/L with a median diameter of
3 µm was used in this study. Energy dissipation rate varied from 10-3 (sheltered estuarine) to 10+2
(breaking wave) m2/s3. Five different oils were used ranging from Hibernia (839 kg/m3) to
Prudhoe Bay (905 kg/m3). Results showed that OMA did not form when the dissipation rate is
below 100 m2/s3. At much higher energy dissipation rates, i.e. 10+2 m2/s3, formation of OMA
increases rapidly and varied between 31% of available oil for Alaska North Slope oil to 97% for
Hibernia oil.

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 437

Environment Canada (2013) conducted a large set of physical experiments to

characterize the behavior of diluted bitumen. Amongst other considerations, the potential
interaction between oil and sediment was quantified. Three sizes ranges of particles were
considered: Kaolin (1 to 2 µm diameter), diatomaceous earth (44 µm diameter) and sand (200 to
300 µm diameter). A rotary end-over-end mixer was used. While the specifications of the mixer
used were not provided, it can be inferred that energy dissipation rate is at least the same level, if
not higher, than flasks, assumed to be 1.10-1 m2/s3. A sediment concentration of 10,000 mg/L
was added to 600 mL of 33 ppt NaCl brine in a 2.2 L vessel, to which 30 mL of diluted bitumen
oil was added. Results concluded that OMA formed. It was acknowledged that such sediment
concentration was high, as was the oil concentration.
Waterman and Garcia (2015) conducted a set of laboratory tests on Cold Lake Blend
(CLB) diluted bitumen to explore the oil-particle aggregates that formed during the Kalamazoo
River spill following a pipeline burst of Enbridge Line 6B in July 2010. Tests were conducted
with sediments from Talmadge Creek (the initial tributary contacted by the spill) and organic
debris. Turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rates varied between 10-1 and 10-3 m2/s3. Initial
shaking was conducted at 200 rpm in a baffled flask in order to entrain all of the oil in the water
column. Tests were conducted first with abundant organic debris (800 mg/L) mixed with a
concentration of 780 mg/L of CLB oil. Another set of experiments was to characterize large-size
solid-type OMA and involved 420 to 830 mg/L sediment, mixed with 780 to 1,550 mg/L of CLB
oil. Both results showed that OPA formed even in waters with salinity about 1/100 that of
seawater. Settling velocities ranged from 1 to 11mm/s; most at 2 mm/s. The authors pointed out
that little oil was entrained when shaking at 150 rpm (energy dissipation rate of about 10-2 m2/s3).
Hence a higher shaking frequency was used to ensure all oil was initially entrained.
Perez et al. (2014) presented interesting results characterizing the formation of OMA in
turbulent streams and rivers based on the Kaolinite concentration and the level of turbulence.
Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO) was used for the experiment. IFO was subject to about 10,800 waves
in 30 minute of agitation in an automatic shaker. Regardless of the level of turbulence, no OMA
formed for sediment concentration less than 2,000 mg/L. When reaching 4,000 mg/L, up to 2.6%
of the oil formed OMA in the case of 7 cm waves, and about 4% of the total oil formed OMA
when 7 cm waves were combined with a sediment concentration of 18,000 mg/L. The
approximate energy dissipation rate was calculated in the order of 2.10-4 m2/s3.
Finally, King et al. (2015) conducted experiments at the Bedford Institute of
Oceanography in Dartmouth, NS, to study the behaviour of Cold Lake Blend Dilbit when treated
with dispersant and mineral fines in a wave tank. Each wave cycle spanned 15 s, characterized
by four breaking waves of 0.4 m height, followed by a quiescence period lasting 25 s. Little oil
dispersed in the tank, less than 5%, in the presence of fine kaolinite clay minerals.

3 Natural Conditions in the Lower Fraser River and the Salish Sea, British
Columbia
If a spill were to occur in the waters of South-West British Columbia, two factors are
required for the formation of OMA: adequate suspended sediment concentration, and adequate
mixing energy, as parameterized in terms of turbulent energy dissipation. In this paper, particular
focus has been placed on the Salish Sea, with a main focus on the Fuca-Georgia Strait system, as
well as the Fraser River and its delta (Lower Fraser River), since this is a very sensitive
ecosystem and contains the highest suspended sediment concentration of the Fuca-Georgia Strait
system.

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 438

The Fraser River is the largest river reaching the west coast of Canada, from a flow and
sediment discharge perspective. Sediment transport in the Fraser River has been characterized
over the past 40 years through various studies and sediment collection campaigns. Most of the
field observations described herein were conducted near Hope, Mission and between the Port
Mann Bridge and Sand Heads, BC. (Figure 1). Milliman (1979) reported that 80% of the annual
suspended sediment load is transported during freshet, about half of which is sand (typically
around 300 microns in size); in contrast to non-freshet conditions when silt and clay
predominate.
Surface sediment concentrations are of the most interest, since they would have the
highest potential to interact with a surface spill. Two sediment sampling campaigns were
undertaken by the authors of this paper in 2014 and 2016 to characterize these suspended
sediment matter near the surface and are presented in Section 3.1. The results of the campaigns
are then put in perspective with previous campaigns conducted by others over the past 30 years,
described in Section 3.2. Finally Section 3.3 focuses on the level of energy that can be
encountered in the Lower Fraser River and the Fuca-Georgia Strait system.

Figure 1 South-West British Columbia and the Fraser River System

3.1 Lower Fraser River Sediment Sampling Campaigns: This Study

Two campaigns to characterize suspended sediment concentration in surface waters
were conducted in the Lower Fraser River. The first campaign covered the 2014 freshet (May 28
2014 during the peak of the freshet – 9,920 m3/s), while the second campaign looked at typical
winter flow conditions (February 16 2016 – 1,380 m3/s). For both campaigns, flow rates were
obtained from the publicly available Water Survey of Canada’s website, specifically Fraser River
discharge measured at Hope, BC. Figure 2 shows the maximum and minimum Fraser flow rates
recorded, as well as the 2014 Fraser flow rates. Blue circles represent Fraser flows during the

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 439

two campaigns and the other data points correspond to the various field campaigns presented in
Section 3.2.

Figure 2 Fraser River Flow Rates - Maximum, Minimum and 2014 (First Sampling
Campaign)

Figure 3 Site Sampling Locations

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 440

Samples were taken within 0.2 m of the surface at various sites from the Port Mann
Bridge to the Strait of Georgia, as shown on Figure 3. Surface water samples were then sent to
ALS Environmental for a Total Suspended Solid (TSS) analysis. The analysis was carried out
using procedures adapted from the American Public Health Association (APHA)
2540 D “Solids”. TSS was determined gravimetrically, by filtering a sample through a weighted
glass fibre filter, then by drying the residue retained on the filter at 104 ºC. The increase in
weight of the filter represents the total suspended solids. It should be noted that samples
containing very high dissolved solid content may produce a positive bias by this method. The
detection limit at the lab was 3 mg/L. Samples were collected on a falling tide, the tidal phase
with maximum river flow and largest suspended sediment concentration.
Four sites were sampled during the freshet 2014 survey, as indicated in Figure 3: PM
(located at the crossing of the Fraser River and the Trans Mountain Pipeline), FRB, SH and
SOG. The delineation of the freshwater from the Fraser River plume and the saline waters of the
Strait of Georgia was well marked, representative of typical freshet conditions as shown on
Figure 4. While the SH site was still within the Fraser River plume, the SOG site was located in
saline water outside of the river plume, well into the Strait of Georgia. Sites are listed from
upstream to downstream in Table 1. A maximum surface suspended sediment concentration of
224 mg/L was obtained in the Fraser River downstream of Annacis Island at Site FRB. No
conductivity and temperature data were taken during this first campaign.

Table 1 TSS – 2014 Freshet Campaign (Fraser Flow: 9,920 m3/s)

Site TSS Near Surface Location of Sample
(mg/L)
PM 208.0 49º 13.009 / 122º 48.389
FRB 224.0 49º 08.674 / 123º 02.553
SH 59.6 49º 06.256 / 123º 20.764
SOG 11.4 49º 05.302 / 123º 23.715

Figure 4 Delineation of Fraser Plume in the Strait of Georgia (Photo from Ocean
Networks Canada)

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 441

Similarly, a campaign was conducted in February 2016 where samples were collected at
nine different sites, as shown on Figure 3. Low river flow characterized this second campaign
and were typical of winter conditions: 1,380 m3/s (Figure 2). The sampling occurred during a
falling tide, to capture the maximum influence of the Fraser flow. Measurement of temperature,
salinity and conductivity was conducted with a CTD YSI 6600 sonde at each site. The YSI sonde
is a water quality monitoring instrument that provides simultaneous measurement of
conductivity, temperature and depth. The sonde was kept at about 0.3 m to 0.4 m depth during
the recording. A couple of minutes were necessary for the readings to stabilize. Sites are listed
from upstream to downstream river in Table 2. Duplicates were taken at various sites and are
presented when available.
The suspended solids concentration were relatively uniform and ranged from 5 to 18
mg/L, which reflects the low sediment load of the river in February and the low settling rate of
the fine grained particles. The maximum of 18 mg/L was obtained at the mouth of the Fraser
River near Sand Heads. Low TSS values were associated with a significant variability: TSS
values doubled at certain sites between the first sample and the duplicate. The difficulty of the
boat to stay on stationary and drifting with currents is one explanation. The boundary between
river water and Strait of Georgia water was not as distinct as in the May 2014 campaign, because
the momentum and buoyancy fluxes that drive formation of the front are relatively weak during
the low flows in February.

Table 2 TSS – 2016 Winter Campaign (Fraser Flow: 1,380 m3/s)

Site Temperature Salinity Conductivity TSS Near Location of Sample
(ºC) (psu) (µS/cm) Surface
(mg/L)
PM 5.1 0.05 60 13.0 / 10.2 49º 13.054 / 122º 08.501
NAF 5.3 0.04 49 9.2 / 6.9 49º 11.847 / 122º 55.521
FRT 5.2 0.04 52 8.6 49º 11.584 / 122º 54.997
FRB 5.6 0.44 600 5.6 / 5.7 49º 08.907 / 123º 02.348
LR 5.6 2.06 2,481 8.8 / 11.0 49º 06.685 / 123º 05.229
SMA 5.5 2.25 2,675 4.7 / 10.8 49º 07.208 / 123º 11.192
SH 5.6 2.86 3,360 9.6 / 8.0 49º 06.612 / 123º 17.101
NSH 7.4 20.03 21,500 18.1 49º 06.248 / 123º 20.058
WSH 6.9 16.45 17,700 6.9 / 16.2 49º 05.620 / 123º 21.110

3.2 Suspended Sediment Concentrations Characterizing the Lower Fraser River and
the Salish Sea
The results of the sampling campaigns were combined with various field observations
that were conducted at Hope, Mission and near Port Mann Bridge, BC, between the late 1960s
and 2010 by other investigators, in particular staff from Water Survey of Canada. These
observations are reported in Table 3, along with the maximum total suspended solid (TSS)
concentrations near the surface and near the bottom. While the surface concentration is of most
importance for interaction with a surface slick, bottom concentrations are given for comparison,
when available.
Fraser River flow rates corresponding to the sampling time of the various campaigns are
shown in Figure 2. Data cover a wide range of Fraser River flows, ranging between low flows of
600 m3/s to high freshet flows above 8,000 m3/s. The winter and early spring low flow season in

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 442

the Lower Fraser River is characterized by a discharge below 2,000 m3/s and a suspended
sediment concentration of 7 to 80 mg/L at the surface and 50 to 95 mg/L near the bed (Milliman,
1979; Jiang and Fissel, 2005; Attard et al., 2010). Milliman concluded that outside of the freshet
suspended sediment concentration is generally less than 50 mg/L, dropping below 20 mg/L
during high tide. Medium flows, ranging between 2,000 m3/s and 6,000 m3/s, are representative
of a small freshet and are characterized by a maximum suspended sediment concentration of 200
mg/L near the surface and 400 mg/L near the bottom (Attard et al., 2010). High flows, above
6,000 m3/s, are representative of a medium to strong freshet and are characterized by a
suspended sediment concentration of 130 mg/L to 600 mg/L near the surface and 1,000 mg/L to
1,800 mg/L near the bottom (Milliman, 1979). Median suspended sediment diameter ranged
between 14 to 47 µm during low to medium flows and reach over 200 µm during high river
flows (Attard et al., 2010).

Table 3 Maximum TSS based on Sampling Campaigns from Other Investigators

Year Fraser Location Maximum Maximum Source
River Surface Bottom
Flow Rate TSS TSS
(m3/s) (mg/L) (mg/L)
May-68 8,330 Port Mann Bridge 300 - Milliman (1979)
Jun-75 6,450 Port Mann Bridge 200 1,000 Water Survey of
Canada*
Feb-76 1,000 Port Mann Bridge 7 95 Water Survey of
Canada*
Apr-76 1,200 Port Mann Bridge 30 - Water Survey of
Canada*
May-76 8,100 Sand Heads 600 1,800 Milliman (1979)
May-76 6,860 Port Mann Bridge 130 1,400 Milliman (1979)
1977- - Strait of Georgia <8 - Feely and Lamb
1979 (LANDSAT) (1979)
Mar-02 600 South Sand Heads - 50 Jiang and Fissel
(2005)
Apr-03 1,500 South Sand Heads - 90 Jiang and Fissel
(2005)
Apr-10 1,180 Mission 80 80 Attard et al. (2010)
May-10 3,355 Mission 200 300 Attard et al. (2010)
Jun-10 5,915 Mission < 200 400 Attard et al. (2010)
May-14 9,920 U/S Annacis Island 224 - Tetra Tech (2016)
May-14 9,920 Strait of Georgia 11 - Tetra Tech (2016)
Feb-16 1,380 Sand Heads 18 - Tetra Tech (2016)
*
Presented in Milliman (1979)

Feely and Lamb (1979) used LANDSAT to provide mapping of total suspended solids
in the Strait of Georgia over different times in 1977, 1978 and 1979. Near the mouth of the
Fraser River, particulate concentrations ranged between 1.0 and 9.0 mg/L during low river flow

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 443

periods. Over this three-year period, most of the Strait of Georgia was characterized by
suspended sediment concentrations less than 8 mg/L.
Results obtained during the 2014 and 2016 sampling campaigns, referred as Tetra Tech,
are in agreement with literature values.

3.3 Energy Dissipation Rate Characterizing the Lower Fraser River and the Salish
Sea
Characterization of energy dissipation rates for the study area has been divided into
three sections. Section 3.3.1 describes levels of energy characterizing the open water of the
Salish Sea, the Fuca-Georgia Strait system, while Section 3.3.2 presents the energy dissipation
rate near the shoreline. Section 3.3.3 describes energy levels characterizing the Lower Fraser
River system.

3.3.1 Salish Sea: Fuca-Georgia Strait System – Open Water

Delvigne and Sweeney (1988) indicated typical values for energy dissipation rates due
to breaking waves in the open ocean:
 Deep sea: 10-7 to 10-5 m2/s3;
 Estuary: 10-4 to 10-3 m2/s3;
 Surface Layer: 10-3 to 10-2 m2/s3;
 Breaking wave: 100 to 10+1 m2/s3.
Energy dissipation rates were computed at several buoys maintained by Environment
Canada and the NOAA and are presented in Table 4. The buoys characterize conditions in the
Strait of Georgia (Sentry Shoal, Halibut Bank), Haro Strait (New Dungeness) and Juan de Fuca
Strait (Neah Bay and La Perouse). The calculation of the energy dissipation rate was based on
Delvigne and Sweeney’s empirical method corresponding to a wave breaking event (Equation 1).
ଶ
‫ܦ‬௕௔ = 0.0034. ߩ௪ . ݃. ‫ܪ‬௥௠ ௦ (1)

With: Dba the energy dissipation per unit surface area (J/m2);
ρw the water density;
Hrms the root mean square value of the wave height in the wave field.

Table 4 Energy Dissipation Rate in Georgia/Fuca Strait System

Station Name Period of Average Dba Median Dba Maximum Dba
Record (m2/s3) (m2/s3) (m2/s3)
Sentry Shoal 1992-2012 3.10-3 3.10-4 7.10-1
-3
Halibut Bank 1992-2012 2.10 7.10-4 4.10-1
New Dungeness 2004-2013 3.10-3 2.10-3 6.10-2
-2
Neah Bay 2004-2012 1.10 1.10-2 2.10-1
La Perouse 1989-2012 2.10-2 1.10-2 1.100

In Table 4 above, the energy dissipation per event, Dba, has been converted to energy
dissipation per unit mass, per unit volume and per unit time by assuming the dissipation occurs
within 1 m of the surface, a conservative assumption in the open-water environment of the Fuca-
Georgia Strait system. As well, a breaking event was assumed to occur once every peak period.

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 444

The purpose of these conservative assumptions was to provide an upper-bound in the

computation of energy dissipation rates for the Fuca-Georgia Strait system.
These numbers are in agreement with literature: Camargo et al. (2014) used a Vertical
Microstructure Profiler (VMP-250) in Saanich Inlet, Strait of Georgia, to measure dissipation
rates at the southern side of the sill of Saanich Inlet. Depth in the area reaches 60 m. Energy
dissipation rates varied between 10-8 and 10-6 m2/s3 near the surface during a 12-hour recording
event. Li and Garrett (1998) reported that the energy dissipation rate in breaking wave ranges
from 10-1 m2/s3 in moderate sea conditions to 10+1 m2/s3 in stormy sea conditions during sporadic
breaking events. Since wave breaking is intermittent, they also indicated a mean dissipation rate
in the order of 10-4 to 10-3 m2/s3. Thomson (2012) studied energy dissipation rate during ocean
wave breaking within 1 m of the water surface using SWIFT drifters. A series of test were
conducted at the US Army Corps of Engineers Field Research Facility at Duck and on lake
Washington in Seattle. Observed waves reached about 0.8 m (Hs) and presented dissipation rates
between 10-5 to 10-3 m2/s3. Finally, deep water measurements conducted by Drennan et al. (1996)
on the continental shelf and Anis and Moum (1995) in the open-water indicated a range of
energy dissipation rates varying between 2.10-5 and 4.10-4 m2/s3 and between 10-6 and 10-4 m2/s3,
respectively. The corresponding wave heights ranged between 0.3 m and 3.0 m.
Energy dissipation rates calculated at Neah Bay and La Perouse Bank are somewhat on
the high side compared to literature values. Two reasons are possible. First, these two stations are
located in a more energetic environment since both are directly exposed to the North Pacific
Ocean. Second, the uncertainties in measurements of energy dissipation rates can bring up the
average recorded value by an order of magnitude (Agrawal et al., 1992). Rapp and Melville
(1990) showed that the energy dissipation rate in unsteady breaking could be an order of
magnitude smaller than steady breakers. In light of the above explanation, dissipation rates
calculated at La Perouse Bank and Neah Bay are in agreement with the literature.

3.3.2 Salish Sea: Fuca-Georgia Strait System – Near Shorelines

The wave energy flux impinging a shoreline is balanced by outgoing reflected wave
energy and energy losses due to bottom friction and wave breaking. Measurements of energy
dissipation within the surf zone range from 1.10-7 m2/s3 to 5.10-2 m2/s3 for breaking waves at a
range of sand beaches. Compared to breaking waves at a beach, open water breaking waves
describe in Section 3.3.1 have a similar energy dissipation lower bound but an energy dissipation
upper bound two orders of magnitude smaller. Representative energy dissipation measurements
are presented in Table 5.
The high exposure sections of the Salish Sea’s coastline are comprised of several
shoreline types: sandy beach (28%), pebble/gravel beach (11%), cobble/boulder beach (17%)
and rock (44%) (Harper, 2013). The rate of shoreline energy dissipation is directly related to the
wave reflectivity of the shoreline material and slope: the more wave energy that is reflected, the
lower the energy dissipation. Sand beaches reflect 5% to 20% of incoming wave energy,
pebble/gravel beaches 20% to 40%, cobble/boulder beaches as much as 90% and rock shorelines
or cliffs may approach 100% reflection (Powell, 1988; Powell, 1990; Mason et al., 1997; Van
Wellens et al., 1997; Watt, 2005; Zanuttigh and van der Meer, 2008; Carini et al., 2015).
Therefore, the actual value of wave energy dissipation along the Salish Sea’s shoreline will
depend on the shoreline type and be generally lower, by perhaps up to 20 times for gravel and
cobble beaches, than the values presented in Table 5.

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 445

Table 5 Energy Dissipation Rate for Sandy Beaches

Source Lower Upper Wave Height Location
Bound Bound
m2/s3 m2/s3 m
George et al., 1994 5.10-5 5.10-2 unknown Sand beach
Bryan et al., 2002 3.10-7 3.10-3 0.10 to 0.65 Sand beach
Feddersen, 2011 1.10-4 1.10-3 0.40 to 1.20 Sand beach
Veron and Melville, 1999 1.10-7 1.10-4 0.70 to 1.80 Sand beach
Terray et al., 1996 3.10-6 1.10-3 <0.10 to 2.50 near shore,
12m depth
Kitaigorodskii et al., 7.10-5 5.10-4 unknown near shore,
1983 12 m depth

Table 6 Other Estuarine Systems Energy Dissipation Rates

Estuarine River Average Peak Energy Source
System Discharge at River River Dissipation
Time of Discharge Discharge Rate
Observation 3
(m /s) 3
(m /s) (m2/s3)
3
(m /s)
Altamaha Delta 200 m3/s 383 5,040 0 - 2.10-4 Di Iorio
(June 2001) / and Kang
(Georgia, USA) 1,800 m3/s 8.10-4 (2007)
(6 to 10 m depth, (March 2003)
1 km width)

Merrimack River 1,260 m3/s 214 3,000 1.10-5 - 2.10-4 MacDonald

(May 2006) et al.
(Gulf of Maine) (2007)
(<10m depth)

Snohomish River 50 - 250 m3/s 270 4,248 2.10-6 - 2.10-4 Talke et al.
Estuary (September (2013)
2009)
(Puget Sound, south Chickadel
Juan de Fuca Strait) et al.
(Site depth 2 to 3 m) (2011)

Hudson River 100 m3/s 620 6,088 1.10-3 Peters and

Estuary (summer 1995) (near bed) to Bokhorst
(15 m depth, to 1400 m3/s 1.10-8 (1999)
1000 m width) (fall 1995) (near surface)

Pearl River Estuary - 9,500 - 5.10-7 - 8.10-4 Liu et al.

(about 3 km width) (2011)

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 446

3.3.3 Lower Fraser River System

Characterization of energy dissipation rates in the Fraser River is more difficult since
the primarily source of turbulence is the river bed. Bedard (2011) studied the interaction of tidal
currents with Fraser Ridge at the mouth of the Fraser River and the energy dissipation rate
resulting from this interaction. Through an ADCP survey in November 2007 and summer 2010,
energy dissipation rates ranging between 10-5 to 10-4 m2/s3 were determined near bottom during
strong flood. Note that the Fraser Ridge is located at a depth of about 150 m. Field measurements
(Peter and Bokhorst, 2000) clearly show a one to three order of magnitude difference in large
rivers between energy dissipation rate near the bottom (highest energy dissipation rate) and near
the surface.
While each estuarine system is unique, a brief literature search was conducted for other
estuarine systems to obtain energy dissipation rates. Table 6 summarizes the results of this
literature review. Estuarine systems slightly smaller than the Fraser River system are presented
first, followed by systems of similar size to the Fraser River Estuarine.

3.3.4 Energy Dissipation Summary

In light of similar estuarine systems listed above, the Lower Fraser River has an
estimated energy dissipation rate varying from about 10-7 to 10-3 m2/s3. The near bottom value of
10-3 m2/s3 provides an upper bound for this study since energy dissipation near bottom is much
greater than near the surface for a riverine system. The Fuca-Georgia Strait system shows mean
energy dissipation rates in open-water varying between 10-8 and 10-3 m2/s3, while maximums
based on wave breaking were computed to reach about 100 m2/s3. Shorelines in the Fuca-Georgia
Strait system dissipate energy at a rate up to 5.10-2 m2/s3.
While no OMA formation experiments have been conducted with the energy dissipation
rates and TSS values characterizing the Lower Fraser River and the Fuca-Georgia Strait system,
an attempt to put in perspective these energy dissipation rates through a comparison with
previous lab experiment was undertaken. Khelifa et al. (2005) investigated the amount of oil
stabilized by OMA formation based on varying energy dissipation rates for two types of crude
oil (Hibernia and Alaska North Slope – two light crudes with low viscosity). Figure 5
summarizes the percentage of stabilized OMA in Khelifa’s experiments, based on varying
dissipation rates and a fixed suspended sediment concentration of 250 mg/L. Hibernia Oil led to
significantly more OMA stabilization compared to Alaska North Slope Oil. To relate Khelifa’s
experiments to conditions in the Lower Fraser River and the Salish Sea, OMA stabilization
percentages corresponding to conditions in the Lower Fraser River (circles) and the Salish Sea
(squares and triangles) were added to Figure 5. In the Lower Fraser River cases, since the
dissipation rates were lower than the rate required for OMA stabilization, about 100 m2/s3, no
OMA would form, assuming same TSS and oil type as used by Khelifa. In the Fuca-Georgia
Strait system (squares and triangles), maximum dissipation rates would most of the time be too
low to provide sufficient energy. In some rare cases, the maximum energy dissipation rate barely
reaches the energy level threshold, necessary to form stable OMA, i.e. 100 m2/s3.
One should keep in mind that the formation of OMA is not only a function of
dissipation rates but also other parameters such as the type of oil (a more viscous one could lead
to more OMA formation) and the concentration of suspended sediment. The suspended sediment
concentration used for the lab experiments, i.e. 250 mg/L, is occasionally met in the Lower
Fraser River, but not in the Fuca-Georgia Strait system.

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 447

Figure 5 Percentage of Stabilized OMA based on Energy Dissipation Rate

4 Summary and Comparison

While most of the OMA experimental studies described the suspended sediment
concentration and the amount of oil poured into the flask, the level of energy that was used was
harder to quantify. Orders of magnitude were determined based on Kaku et al. (2006 a, b) in
order to conduct a comparison between laboratory parameters leading to the formation of OMA
and natural conditions observed in the Salish Sea and the Lower Fraser River. Table 7
summarizes laboratory results described in Section 2. Figure 6 illustrates this comparison. The x-
axis represents the suspended sediment concentration (mg/L) and the y-axis shows the energy
dissipation rate (m2/s3). Both axes are in log scale. Note that there is no relationship that should
be inferred between the level in suspended sediment and the energy dissipation rate. Instead, the
reader should focus on where observed conditions in the area of study stand compared to
laboratory conditions.
Circles filled with colours represent laboratory conditions, described in Section 2 and
summarized in Table 7. A red-filled circle means that OMA formed for the corresponding
plotted sediment concentration and energy level during the experiment. An orange-filled circle
means that traces of OMA were measured. In other words, OMA did form but in very little
quantity. Finally, the green-filled circles represent conditions when OMA did not form during
the experiment. Oils ranging from light crudes with low viscosity up to diluted bitumen with
high viscosity were included.
Natural conditions observed in the Salish Sea, in particular the Fuca-Georgia Strait
system, and in the Lower Fraser River are indicated in blue, with crosses and circles to represent
the Salish Sea and the Lower Fraser River system respectively. Since the energy dissipation rate
was difficult to quantify at each site and for each sample, the range of potential energy
dissipation rates was plotted, based on results and observations obtained in Section 3. For the

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 448

Lower Fraser River system, literature indicated that energy dissipation rates vary between 10-7 to
10-3 m2/s3, the value of 10-3 m2/s3 representing a likely upper bound for this system near the
surface. For the Salish Sea, mean energy dissipation rates in open-water vary between 10-8 and
10-2 m2/s3, while maximums were computed to reach about 100 m2/s3.
Median, average and maximum energy dissipation rates were calculated for the Salish
Sea in the Fuca-Georgia System and plotted on Figure 6. The Salish Sea shows suspended
sediment concentrations usually lower than 8 mg/L. The Lower Fraser River system has a much
higher suspended sediment concentration, particularly during freshet, but lower energy
dissipation rates.

Table 7 Summary of Experiments

Oil Type Density Total Estimated Formation of Source
and Suspended Dissipation OMA
Dynamic Sediment Rate Observed
Viscosity Concentration (m2/s3)
at 15 ºC (mg/L)
3
IFO #2 967 kg/m < 2,000 2.10-4 No Perez et al.
1,350 cP 4,000 2.10-4 Yes (2014)
18,000 2.10-4 Yes

Hibernia 839 kg/m3 250 1.10-3 No Khelifa et al.

49 cP 250 1.10-2 No (2005)
250 1.10-1 No
Alaska North 894 kg/m3 250 1.100 Yes
Slope 23 cP 250 1.101 Yes
Cold Lake 925 kg/m3 10,000 1.10-1 Yes Environment
Blend 285 cP Canada
(2013)
Access 925 kg/m3
Western Blend 347 cP

Cold Lake 925 kg/m3 800 1.10-3 Traces Waterman

Blend 285 cP 800 1.10-2 Traces and Garcia
800 1.10-1 Yes (2015)

Figure 6 puts the natural conditions observed in the Lower Fraser River and the Salish
Sea in perspective with conditions used during lab experiments. The figure clearly shows that
natural conditions in the area of study are typically in the “No OMA Formed” zone, generally
one to three orders of magnitude below the suspended sediment concentration and energy level
thresholds. One sample taken during the freshet in the Lower Fraser River is located in the
“Trace of OMA” area, which means that slight OMA formation could occur under such
conditions. One should note that the results of Figure 6 are directly linked with the type of oil in
addition to energy dissipation rate and sediment levels: most of the results with varying
dissipation rates were associated with low viscosity types of oil. The higher viscosity oil types
such as IFO and diluted bitumen bring valuable information on the formation of OMA, but are
limited since little variation of parameters (dissipation rates and suspended sediment) were

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 449

conducted during the experiment. This summary graph would gain in being updated once
additional experimental dataset are available for other types of oil.

Figure 6 Summary Graph – Experimental Results (Colored Dots) and Natural

Conditions in the Lower Fraser River and the Salish Sea

5 Conclusion
This study focused on the potential for natural formation of OMA in the waters of
South-West British Columbia, in particular in the Salish Sea and the Lower Fraser River. Several
studies have been undertaken during the past 15 years to characterize the conditions for
formation of OMA. Khelifa et al. (2005) presented a very interesting quantification of the
formation of stable OMA. While most of the experimental studies used conditions (i.e. sediment
concentration and energy level) known to result in OMA formation so that their sinking velocity
and shape could be characterized, Khelifa et al. (2005) quantified the level of energy necessary
to form OMA given a fixed and representative sediment concentration. In light of natural
conditions in the area of study (Salish Sea and Lower Fraser River), the results of this study
indicate that the formation of OMA in the Salish Sea and the Lower Fraser River system during
non-freshet months is extremely unlikely, since the level of energy does not reach the threshold
identified during the experiment. As well, Environment Canada (2013) conducted a valuable
study to characterize the interaction between minerals and diluted bitumen. Amongst other
results, they showed that with a very high sediment concentration diluted bitumen oil and

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 450

sediment will interact. However, the suspended sediment concentration in the area of study are
least two orders of magnitude lower than in Environment Canada’s study. The Environment
Canada study provides an upper bound for sediment concentration that is not representative of
either the Salish Sea or the Lower Fraser River.
The outcome of this present paper is aligned with Payne’s observation (Payne et al,
2003): “Fortunately, inorganic SPM (Suspended Particulate Matter) loads in the open ocean are
usually less than a few mg/l, so it can be concluded that oil/SPM interactions during most open-
ocean oil spills are generally insignificant. (…) However, localized sedimentation can occur in
regions along coastlines where sandy beaches and higher SPM loads might be encountered”.
This paper shows that the formation of OMA in the Salish Sea and the Lower Fraser River is
highly unlikely, even during freshet conditions. A limitation of this study was the small number
of oil types that were studied: one factor in the formation of OMA is the viscosity of the oil. The
study would have benefited if experimental data on OMA formation were available from a wider
range of oil types, to be compared with natural conditions in the Lower Fraser River and the
Salish Sea. It should be noted that river flood conditions, during which water levels rise and
flood a wetland or flood plain, for instance, spilled oil would have many opportunities to pick up
significant organic debris. The resulting aggregate could be a significant factor in the fate of the
oil, and warrants further study. Additionally, there could be conditions under which oil may stick
to a substrate and remain sunk, which could be mistakenly attributed to OMA formation by
observers. For example, oil reaching a beach or mud flat, becoming stranded and remaining
stuck to the soil/sand even when the tide comes in. The high adhesive qualities of weathered
dilbit make this a likely significant process at shorelines, river banks and intertidal flats.
Finally, this study focused on natural OMA formation: the use of sediment as a
remediation tool is, obviously, very different and was not discussed in this paper.
6 Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge Trans Mountain for the funding of this study and Water
Survey of Canada for the quantity of data available for the Fraser River.

7 References
Agrawal Y.C., E.A. Terray, M.A. Donelan, P.A. Hwang, A.J. Williams III, W.M. Drennan, K.K.
Kahma and S.A. Kitaigorodskii, “Enhanced Dissipation of Kinetic Energy Beneath Surface
Waves”, Letter to Nature, 359, 1992.

Ajijolaiya, L.O., P.S. Hill, A. Khelifa, R.M. Islam and K. Lee, “Laboratory Investigation of the
Effects of Mineral Size and Concentration on the Formation of Oil-Mineral Aggregates”, Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 52:920-927, 2006.

Anis, A. and J. N. Moum, “Surface Wave–Turbulence Interactions: Scaling ε(z) near the Sea
Surface”, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 25, pp. 2025–2045, 1995.
Attard, M.E., J.G. Venditti and M. Church, “Suspended Sediment Transport in Fraser River at
Mission, British Columbia: New Observations and Comparison to Historical Records”,
Canadian Water Resources Journal, 2014.

Bedard J., “Tidal Interactions with Local Topography above a Sponge Reef”, Master Thesis,
University of Victoria, 2011.

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 451

Camargo C., E. Murowinski, R. Lueck and F. Wolk, “Turbulence over the Sill of Saanich Inlet,
BC, Canada”, in Proceedings of the 17th Physics of Estuaries and Coastal Seas (PECS)
Conference, Brazil, 2014.

Cloutier, D., P.R. Hill, C.L. Amos, and K. Lee, “Annular Flume Experiments on Oil-Mineral
Aggregates: an Oil Spill Countermeasure on Low Energy Shorelines”, in Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Contaminates Sediments, 129-134, 2002.

Carini, R.J., C.C. Chickadel, A.T. Jessup, J. Thomson, “Estimating Wave Energy Dissipation in
the Surf Zone Using Thermal Infrared Imagery”, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 120,
2015.

Chickadel C., S. Talke, A.R. Horner-Devine and A.T. Jessup, “Infrared-Based Measurements of
Velocity, Turbulent Kinetic Energy, and Dissipation at the Water Surface in a Tidal River”,
IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, (5), 2011.

Delvigne G.A.L. and C.E. Sweeney, “Natural Dispersion of Oil”, Oil & Chemical Pollution 4:
281-310, 1988.

Di Iorio D. and K.R. Kang, Variations of Turbulent Flow with River Discharge in the Altamaha
River Estuary, Georgia”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, 2007.

Drennan, W. M., M. A. Donelan, E. A. Terray, and K. B. Katsaros, “Oceanic Turbulence

Dissipation Measurements in SWADE”, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 26: 808-815, 1996.

Environment Canada, “Properties, Composition and Marine Spill Behavior, Fate and Transport
of Two Diluted Bitumen Products from the Canadian Oil Sands”, Federal Government Technical
Report, 2013.

Feddersen, F., “Observation of the Surf-Zone Turbulent Dissipation Rate”, Journal of Physical
Oceanography, 42: 386-399, 2012.
Feely R.A. and M.F. Lamb, “A Study of the Dispersal of Suspended Sediment from the Fraser
and Skagit River into Northern Puget Sound using LANDSAT Imagery”, US EPA, Marine
Ecosystem Analysis Program, 1979.

Fitzpatrick F.A., M.C. Boufadel, R. Johnson, K. Lee, T.P. Graan, A.C. Bejarano, Z. Zhu, D.
Waterman, D.M. Capone, E. Hayter, S.K. Hamilton, T. Dekker, M.H. Garcia, and J.S. Hassan,
“Oil-Particle Interactions and Submergence from Crude Oil Spills in Marine and Freshwater
Environments – Review of the Science and Future Science Needs”, U.S. Geological Survey
Open File Report 2015-1076, 2015.

George, R., R.E. Flick, and R. T. Guza, “Observations of Turbulence in the Surf Zone”, Journal
of Geophysical Research, 99: 801–810, 1994.

Harper J.R., “Methods for Estimating Shoreline Oil Retention”, Report COR 13-08, 2013.

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 452

Hintze J.O., “Fundamentals of the Hydrodynamic Mechanism of Splitting in Dispersion

Process”, A.I.Ch.E. Journal, Vol.1, No.3: 289-295.

Jiang J. and D.B. Fissel, “3D Hydrodynamic Modeling of Sediment Dynamics on Roberts and,
Fraser River Foreslope, Strait of Georgia, Canada”, in Proceedings of ECM9, Charleston, SC,
2005.

Kaku, V.J., M.C. Boufadel, and A.D. Venosa, “Evaluation of mixing energy in Laboratory
Flasks Used for Dispersant Effectiveness Testing", Journal of Environmental Engineering,
132(1):93‐101, 2006a.

Kaku V.J., M.C. Boufadel, A.D. Venosa, and J. Weaver, “Flow Dynamics in Eccentrically
Rotating Flasks Used for Dispersant Effectiveness Testing”, Environmental Fluid Mechanics,
6(4):385‐406, 2006b.

Khelifa A., P.S. Hill, P.S. Stoffyn-Egli and K. Lee, “Characteristics of Oil Dropplets Stabilized
by Mineral Particles: The Effect of Salinity”, in Proceedings of the International Oil Spill
Conference, 2003a.

Khelifa A., K. Lee, P. Hill and L. Ajijolaiya, “Modelling the Effect of Sediment Size on OMA
Formation”, in in Proceedings of the 27th AMOP Technical Seminar on Environmental
Contamination and Response, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1:383-395, 2003b.

Khelifa A., P.S. Hill and K. Lee, “A Comprehensive Numerical Approach to Predict Oil-Mineral
Aggregate (OMA) Formation Following Oil Spills in Aquatic Environments”, in Proceedings of
the International Oil Spill Conference, 2005.

King T.L., B. Robinson, C. McIntyre, P. Toole, S. Ryan, F. Saleh, M.C. Boufadel and K. Lee,
“Fate of Surface Spills of Cold Lake Blend Diluted Bitumen Treated with Dispersant and
Mineral Fines in a Wave Tank”, Environmental Engineering Science, Vol.32, No.3, 2015.

Kitaigorodskii, S. A., M. A. Donelan, J. L. Lumley, and A. E. Terray, “Wave–turbulence

interactions in the upper ocean, part II: statistical characteristics of wave and turbulent
components of the random velocity field in the marine surface layer”, Journal of Physical
Oceanography, 13:1988–1999, 1983.

Lee K., P. Stoffyn-Egli, P.A. Wood, and T. Lunel, “Formation and Structure of Oil-Mineral
Fines Aggregates in Coastal Environments”, in Proceedings of the 21st AMOP Technical
Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response,, Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, 1:911-921, 1998.

Lee K. and P. Stoffyn-Egli, “Characterization of Oil-Mineral Aggregates”, in Proceedings of the

International Oil Spill Conference, pp.991-996, 2001.

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 453

Lee, K. (chair), M. Boufadel, B. Chen, J. Foght, P. Hodson, S. Swanson, A. Venosa, “Expert

Panel Report on the Behaviour and Environmental Impacts of Crude Oil Released into Aqueous
Environments”, Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 2015.

Le Floch S., J. Guyomarch, F.X. Merlin, P. Stoffyn-Egli, J. Dixon and K. Lee, “The Influence of
Salinity on Oil-Mineral Aggregate Formation”, Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, 2002.

Li M. and C. Garrett, “The Relationship between Oil Droplet Size and Upper Ocean
Turbulence”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 36, (12):961-970, 1998.

Liu H., C. Wu and J. Ren, “Estimation of Turbulent Kinetic Energy Dissipation Rate in the
Bottom Boundary Layer of the Pearl River Estuary”, China Ocean Engineering 25(4), 2011.

MacDonald D.G., L. Goodman and R.D. Hetland, “Turbulent Dissipation in a Near-Field River
Plume: A Comparison of Control Volume and Microstructure Observations with a Numerical
Model”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, 2007.

Mason, T., G. Voulgaris, D.J. Simmonds, M.B. Collins, “Hydrodynamics and sediment transport
on composite sand/shingle and sand beaches: a comparison”, in Proceedings of coastal dynamics
’97 conference, American society of civil engineers, pp. 48-67, 1997.
Milliman J.D., “Sedimentation in the Fraser River and its Estuary, Southwestern British
Columbia (Canada)”, Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, 10, pp.609-633, 1979.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Spills of Diluted Bitumen from
Pipelines: A Comparative Study of Environmental Fate, Effects and Response, Washington, DC:
The National Academy Press, 2015.

Payne, J.R., B.E. Kirstein, J.R. Clayton, C. Clary, R. Redding, D. McNabb, and G. Farmer,
“Integration of Suspended Particulate Matter and Oil Transportation Study”, Report Submitted to
Minerals Management Service by Science Application International Corporation, 215 p., 1987.

Payne J.R., J.R. Clayton Jr. and B.E. Kirstein, “Oil/Suspended Particulate Material Interactions
and Sediments”, Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, 8, (2):201-221, 2003.

Perez S., P. Furlan, N. Hussein, D. Shinn and R. Crook, “Interaction between Oil and Suspended
Sediments in Class 1-2 Rivers”, in Proceedings of the International Oil Spill Conference, 2014.

Peter H. and R. Bokhorst, “Microstructure Observations of Turbulent Mixing in a Partially

Mixed Estuary. Part I: Dissipation Rate”, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 30:1232-1244.

Peter H. and R. Bokhorst, “Microstructure Observations of Turbulent Mixing in a Partially

Mixed Estuary. Part II: Salt Flux and Stress”, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 31:1105-1119.

Powell, K.A, “The dynamic response of shingle beaches to random waves”, in Proceedings of
the 21st international conference on coastal engineering, American society of civil engineers, pp.
1763-1773, 1988.

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.
 454

Powell, K.A, “Predicting short term profile response for shingle beaches”, HR Wallingford
Report SR 219 UK, 1990.
Rapp R.J. and W.K. Melville, “Laboratory Measurements of Deep-Water Breaking Waves”,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A 331, (1622):735-800, 1990.

Talke S.A., A.R. Horner-Devine, C.C. Chickadel and A.T. Jessup, “Turbulent Kinetic Energy
and Coherent Structures in a Tidal River”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 118:6965-6981,
2013.

Terray, E. A., M. A. Donelan, Y. C. Agrawal, W. M. Dennan, K. K. Williams III, P. A. Hwang,

and S. A. Kitaigorodskii, “Estimates of kinetic energy dissipation under breaking waves”,
Journal of Physical Oceanography, 26, pp. 792–793, 1996.

Thomson J., “Wave Breaking Dissipation Observed with “SWIFT” Drifters”, Journal of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 29:1866-1882, 2012.

Veron, F. and K. Melville, “Pulse-to-pulse Coherent Doppler Measurements of Waves and

Turbulence”, Journal of Atmospheric and Ocean Technology, 16, pp. 1580-1597, 1999.
Watt, T. and C. Moses, “Modelling the behavior of shingle beaches: a review”, Scientific Report,
Beaches at Risk, Phase 1. University of Sussex, 2005.
Van Wellen, E., A.J. Chadwick, P.A.D. Bird, M. Bray, M. Lee and J. Morfett, “Coastal sediment
transport on shingle beaches”, in Proceedings, coastal dynamics ’97 conference, American
society of civil engineers, pp. 38-47, 1997.

Waterman D.M. and M.H. Garcia, “Laboratory Test of Oil-Particle Interactions in a Freshwater
Riverine Environment with Cold Lake Blend Weathered Bitumen”, Report prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, 2015.

Zanuttigh, B., and J.W. van der Meer, “Wave reflection from coastal structures in design
conditions”, Coastal Engineering, CENG-02213, 2008.

Hospital A., J.A. Stronach, and J. Matthieu, A Review of Oil Mineral Aggregates Formation Mechanisms for the Salish Sea and the
Lower Fraser River, Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa,
ON, pp. 434-454 2016.