El

ect
roni
cEdi
ti
on

This electronic edition is licensed to

DRTC
for 1 copy.
© International Maritime Organization
IMO/UNEP
GUIDELINES ON OIL SPILL
DISPERSANT APPLICATION
including environmental considerations

1995 edition

ELECTRONIC EDITION

B
INTERNATIONAL
MARITIME
ORGANIZATION
London, 1995

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 PrintFirst
edition
published
(ISBN 978-92-801-1332-7)
in 1982 by the
INTERNATIONAL
First published
MARITIME
in 1982ORGANIZATION
by the
INTERNATIONAL
4 Albert Embankment,
MARITIME London
ORGANIZATION
SE1 7SR
4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR
www.imo.org
Second edition 1995

Electronic
Printed in the United Kingdom edition, 2010
by MPG-Books Ltd, Bodmin

8 10 9

IMO PUBLICATION
ISBN 978-92-801-1332-7

Sales number: EA575E

The views expressed in thisIMO PUBLICATION

publication do not necessarily represent the
decisions or the stated policies of the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) and the United Nations SalesEnvironment
number: IA575E Programme (UNEP), nor does
mention of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. The
designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication
do
Thenot imply
views the expression
expressed of any opinion
in this publication whatsoever
do not on represent
necessarily the part ofthe
IMO
and UNEPorconcerning
decisions the stated the legal status
policies of the of any State, Territory,
International Maritimecity or area, or its
Organization
authorities,
(IMO) and theor concerning the delimitation
United Nations Environment of Programme
their frontiers or boundaries.
(UNEP), nor does
mention of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. The
designations employed
Copyright #and the presentation
International of the
Maritime material in 1995
Organization this publication
do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IMO
and UNEP concerning the legal status of any State, Territory, city or area, or its
authorities, or concerning theAll rights reserved.
delimitation of their frontiers or boundaries.
No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form
Copyright
or by any#means
International Maritime
without prior Organization
permission 1995
in writing
from the International Maritime Organization.
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form
or by any means without prior permission in writing
from the International Maritime Organization.

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Preface

The IMO/UNEP Guidelines on Oil Spill Dispersant Application including

Environmental Considerations provide up-to-date information on the use of
oil spill dispersants. They are intended primarily for use by Member
Governments and other oil spill responders and should be read with the
Manual on Oil Pollution, Section IV: Combating Oil Spills (IMO (1988)).
The present edition of these Guidelines supersedes the 1982 edition.
France acted as ‘‘lead country’’ in preparing these guidelines. A first draft
version of the text was presented to the thirty-fifth session of the Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International
Maritime Organization (7–11 March 1994) by the Government of France,
acting through the Centre de documentation de recherche et d’expér-
imentations sur les pollutions accidentelles des eaux (CEDRE). A
workshop was subsequently held in Brest (France) on 9 – 11 May
1994, hosted by CEDRE, to review the text. The resulting document was
considered at the thirty-sixth session of the MEPC (31 October to
4 November 1994) by the OPRC Working Group. The Committee
approved the document as amended for publication.
The Committee expressed its appreciation to:
& the Government of France and CEDRE for having taken the lead
in revising these guidelines and for hosting the workshop to
review the text;
& the experts (listed on page iv) who participated in the workshop
and assisted in the preparation of the text;
& The International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conserva-
tion Association (IPIECA) for permission to use material from the
report Dispersants and their Role in Oil Spill Response (IPIECA,
1993), on which section 3.3 is based;
& the World Conservation Monitoring Centre for producing the
sensitivity map for section 2.4.3;
& AEA Technology, CEDRE, Environment Canada, and IKU
Petroleum Research for contributing figures and tables, thus
making this publication available in its present form; and
& all those who reviewed the text and provided comments.

iii

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

List of participants attending the workshop set to
review the guidelines (Brest, France, 9–11 May 1994)
Dr Jenifer Baker (IPIECA, UK)
Mr David Bedborough (MPCU, UK)
Mr Darko Domovic (REMPEC, Malta)
Dr Mervin Fingas (Environment Canada, Canada)
Dr Robert Fiocco (EXXON, USA)
Mr Alun Lewis (IKU Petroleum Research, Norway)
Ms Saara Lintu (IMO, UK)
Dr Tim Lunel (AEA Technology, UK)
Mr François Merlin (CEDRE, France)
Dr Daniel Owen (ITOPF, UK)
Dr Gennady Semanov (CNIIMF, Russian Federation)
Mr Jean Sparfel (CEDRE, France)

iv

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Contents

Chapter 1 – General introduction........................................... 1

Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants .................... 3

2.1 Introduction .................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Risk assessment ............................................................. 3
2.1.2 Sensitivity mapping ........................................................ 3
2.1.3 Approval procedures ...................................................... 3
2.2 Risk assessment process................................................... 4
2.2.1 Dispersibility of oil based upon physical properties......... 4
2.2.2 Likely sizes of spills ....................................................... 5
2.2.2.1 Quantity of dispersant needed ..................................... 5
2.2.2.2 Methods of dispersant application ................................ 5
2.3 Sensitive resources ........................................................... 6
2.4 Net environmental benefit analysis ................................... 7
2.4.1 Introduction .................................................................. 7
2.4.2 Factors to consider when assessing the net
environmental benefit .................................................... 8
2.4.3 Examples....................................................................... 9
2.5 The relevance of the short time window for
dispersant planning ......................................................... 11
2.6 Requirements for assessing the effectiveness of
dispersant operations ....................................................... 12
2.7 Compatibility with mechanical response methods ............. 13

Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill ............. 17

3.1 The decision tree involving dispersant use ........................ 17
3.2 Outline of other spill response options ............................. 19
3.2.1 Mechanical .................................................................... 20
3.2.2 In-situ burning (under consideration) ............................. 20
3.2.3 Let oil come ashore and clean shoreline ......................... 20
3.2.4 No direct action............................................................. 21
3.3 Toxicity aspects ............................................................... 21

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Contents

3.4 Suggestions for dispersant use in different habitats

and with different resources ............................................. 23
3.4.1 Amenity and tourist resources ........................................ 25
3.4.2 Birds ............................................................................. 25
3.4.3 Coral reefs..................................................................... 25
3.4.4 Fish............................................................................... 25
3.4.5 Fish and shellfish mariculture facilities (near-shore) ........ 26
3.4.6 Gravel/cobble beaches ................................................... 26
3.4.7 Industrial facilities.......................................................... 26
3.4.8 Mangroves..................................................................... 26
3.4.9 Marine mammals ........................................................... 27
3.4.10 Mud flats....................................................................... 27
3.4.11 Ponds used for aquaculture and salt production ............. 27
3.4.12 Rocky shores ................................................................. 27
3.4.13 Salt-marshes................................................................... 28
3.4.14 Sandy beaches ............................................................... 28
3.4.15 Seagrass beds ................................................................ 28
3.4.16 Shellfish (intertidal) ....................................................... 28
3.4.17 Shellfish (near-shore subtidal) ........................................ 29

Chapter 4 – Application.......................................................... 31
4.1 General considerations on dispersant application at sea .... 31
4.2 Application procedure ...................................................... 32
4.3 Tactical procedure............................................................ 33
4.4 Logistics for large spills.................................................... 34
4.5 Monitoring ...................................................................... 34
4.5.1 Monitoring effectiveness ................................................. 34
4.5.2 Monitoring environmental effects ................................... 35

Appendix 1 – General considerations on dispersants............. 37

1 Definition ........................................................................ 37
2 History of dispersants ...................................................... 37
3 Nomenclature of currently available dispersants................ 38
4 Composition of dispersants .............................................. 38
5 Dispersant dosages and application rates .......................... 40
6 Facts about dispersants .................................................... 41

vi

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Contents

Appendix 2 – The testing of dispersants ................................ 42

1 Effectiveness test .............................................................. 42
2 Toxicity test ..................................................................... 43
3 Biodegradability tests ....................................................... 43

Appendix 3 – Fate of oil ......................................................... 44

Weathering ...................................................................... 44
Evaporation ..................................................................... 44
Dissolution of oil components.......................................... 44
Photo-oxidation................................................................ 46
Biodegradation................................................................. 46
Sedimentation.................................................................. 46
Water-in-oil (w/o) emulsification....................................... 47
Natural dispersion ........................................................... 47
Spreading ........................................................................ 48
Drifting............................................................................ 48

Appendix 4 – Examples of oil dispersibility and properties ... 50

Appendix 5 – Review of dispersant application methods ....... 53

1 Treatment from aircraft .................................................... 53
1.1 Equipment adapted for helicopters ................................... 53
1.2 Equipment adapted for fixed-wing aircraft ........................ 53
1.2.1 Single-engined aircraft .................................................... 54
1.2.2 Multi-engined aircraft ..................................................... 54
2 Treatment from ships....................................................... 54
2.1 Treatment with concentrated dispersants pre-diluted in
seawater .......................................................................... 54
2.1.1 Treatment by means of an eductor ................................. 55
2.1.2 Treatment using self-contained equipment ...................... 55
2.2 Treatment with concentrated dispersants applied
undiluted......................................................................... 56
2.2.1 Treatment using air-blast sprayers................................... 56
2.2.2 Treatment using spray unit systems................................ 56

vii

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Contents

Appendix 6 – Dispersant application at sea:

operational procedure ..................................... 58
1 Area to be treated ............................................................ 58
2 Methods to be followed and those to be avoided .............. 58
3 Aerial dispersant application............................................. 58
4 Shipboard dispersant application ...................................... 60

References ............................................................................... 61

Further reading....................................................................... 62

viii

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 1
General introduction
This manual primarily describes the use of dispersants in oil spill
response. Other response techniques are referred to in order to provide
background information.
Natural or induced agitation of water causes dispersion of spilled oil into
the water column. Dispersants are mixtures of surfactants in one or more
solvents, specifically formulated to enhance the rate of this natural
process (see appendix 1). Their purpose is therefore to reduce the
amount of oil coming ashore, by converting floating oil into small
droplets dispersed in the water column.
Dispersants are one of several operational methods for dealing with oil at
sea. Others include:
& mechanical recovery of floating oil;
& leaving the oil to weather naturally at sea, but continuing to
monitor its movement on the water; and
& leaving the oil to come ashore, and then dealing with it as
appropriate.

Further methods are still to be developed operationally. These include

in-situ burning and the use of gelling and demulsifying products.
This document deals with the use of dispersants at sea; it does not discuss
their use in fresh/brackish water. Dispersants are not specifically designed
to be used for shoreline clean-up operations; other products, called beach
or rock cleaners, are better adapted for such an application. However, in
some countries, which experience shore tidal flushing, dispersants are
also used for shoreline cleaning.
The hydrocarbon-type dispersants used in the past have had adverse
effects on the environment due to their toxicity. However, modern
dispersants used today are significantly less toxic than the oils they
disperse. One needs to define the place of dispersants in a general
response to oil spills at sea. This is done by balancing the advantages and
disadvantages and comparing these with other available response
methods. Such a net environmental benefit analysis should consider all
relevant environmental conditions and implications (see section 2.4). The

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 1 – General introduction

possible detrimental effects of the use of dispersants might be offset by

the gains that result from keeping other parts of the environment clear of
oil. No single response option will be one hundred per cent effective for
all oils under all conditions; each has its limitations.
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of using dispersants in oil spill
response are listed below:
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
& In contrast to containment and & By introducing the oil into the
recovery, dispersants can be water column, it may adversely
used in stronger currents and affect some marine organisms
greater sea states; which would not otherwise be
& It is often the quickest response reached by oil;
method; & If dispersion of oil is not
& By removing the oil from the achieved, effectiveness of other
surface, it helps to stop the response methods on oil
wind effect on the oil slick’s treated by dispersants may
decrease;
movement that may otherwise
& Dispersants are not effective on
push the surface slick towards
all types of oil under all condi-
the shoreline; tions;
& It reduces the possibility of & If used on shore, it may
contamination of sea birds and increase the penetration of
mammals; oil into the sediments;
& It inhibits the formation of & It introduces an additional
water-in-oil emulsions (‘‘choco- quantity of extraneous
late mousse’’); substances into the marine
& It increases the surface area of environment;
oil that is available for natural & There is a limited time window
degradation. when dispersants can be used.
The remainder of this publication is divided into three chapters. The first,
on planning, deals with considerations on dispersant use that can be
made before a spill occurs. The second, on decision-making, explains how
dispersant use should be considered at the time of a spill. The last
chapter, on application, details the technical aspects of different
application methods.

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 2
Planning for the use of dispersants

2.1 Introduction
Where dispersants are to be part of the response strategy, it is essential
that the contingency plan gives a clear policy statement on their use, on
the procedures in place for prior approval, and on resources available for
a rapid response.
When preparing the contingency plan, at whatever level (e.g. at a national
or site-specific level), the following points should be considered.

2.1.1 Risk assessment

The Manual on Oil Pollution, Section II: Contingency Planning provides
guidelines for risk assessment. The assessment should determine:
& the type of oil likely to be spilled and whether dispersants
will be an effective response option;
& the quantity of oil likely to be spilled, which will determine
the quantity of dispersant required and the most suitable
application method; and
& the location of the oil spill, which will also determine the most
suitable application method given the time needed to reach the
spill.

2.1.2 Sensitivity mapping

It is necessary to determine the nature and distribution of the resources at
risk from an oil spill, with particular reference to their sensitivity to
dispersed oil. Sensitivity may be dependent on time of year.

2.1.3 Approval procedures

To facilitate a rapid response it is necessary for the designated authorities to
have agreed at a national level before a spill the particular dispersants which
can be used and the conditions for their use. This will probably require an
agreed testing procedure for efficiency and toxicity (see appendix 2) and,
where possible, prior approval for the use of dispersants in certain areas.

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

Regional contingency plans should be referred to; consultation with

neighbouring countries should be undertaken where possible.

2.2 Risk assessment process

An essential part of risk assessment is the evaluation of potential spill
scenarios. These should first identify the most likely cause of a spill at a
particular location. Typical examples are:
& blow-out at a production platform;

& tanker grounding or collision; and

& loading or discharging accident at a terminal.

Each scenario will have different characteristics, such as the type of oil
released, the size of the spill, the release rate and the location. Contrasting
examples are a large and continuous release from a blow-out compared to
a small and instantaneous release from a loading operation at a terminal.
Such factors will influence the choice of response method.
Sometimes the physical properties of the oil will be well known in
advance, for example in the case of a production well blow-out or an
accident at a terminal. It will therefore be possible to test the effectiveness
of the dispersant response option during the contingency planning
process. In other cases, such as a passing tanker accident, the type of oil
would probably not be known in advance.
The dispersant response planning needs to be appropriate to the
perceived risk.
2.2.1 Dispersibility of oil based upon physical properties
The properties of crude oils change very rapidly when they are spilled at
sea (see appendix 3). Due to evaporation of the light ends and
incorporation of water as water-in-oil emulsions (‘‘weathering’’), the
viscosity rapidly rises. The pour point of the oil will also rise. As the oil or
emulsion changes from a low-viscosity liquid to one of much higher
viscosity it may become solid. The rate and extent of these changes will
depend on the composition of the oil and conditions such as temperature
and wind speed. An oil that could be effectively treated with dispersants
at the time of the spillage will become less dispersible with time. Most oils
can be successfully treated with dispersants in the first four to six hours of
a spill; one very important exception is heavy fuel oil, which generally
cannot be dispersed. Examples of oil dispersibility and properties are
given in appendix 4.

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

Speed is essential for dispersion to be considered as an effective response

option due to the weathering processes; oils that are easily dispersible
during the first four to six hours on the sea may become non-dispersible
after a few days. The period within which an oil may remain amenable to
dispersants is referred to as a ‘‘time window’’.

2.2.2 Likely sizes of spills

The size of a spill depends on its cause: blow-outs are likely to involve
large spills (10,000 m3/day). Most spills from groundings or collisions
are less than 10,000 tonnes, and almost all operational spills are less than
7 tonnes.

2.2.2.1 Quantity of dispersant needed

Laboratory studies and field experiments, together with practical
experience gained at real incidents, show that, for concentrate
dispersants, treatment rates of 1:10 to 1:20 (dispersant:oil by volume)
are needed, while for conventional hydrocarbon-based dispersants,
equivalent treatment rates range from 1:1 to 1:3 (see appendix 1).
Manufacturers’ recommendations should be consulted before applica-
tion, due to the development of new dispersants.
A spill of 10,000 m3 would therefore require treatment with 500 to
1,000 m3 of concentrate dispersant, assuming this was to be the only
response. Smaller spills require proportionately less dispersant.
The treatment rate is also dependent on sea conditions. Under high-
energy conditions, less dispersant may be needed.

2.2.2.2 Methods of dispersant application

The most effective method used to apply dispersants depends on the spill
size and the oil’s proximity to available spraying equipment.
Dispersants may be sprayed from aircraft (fixed–wing planes or
helicopters) or ships (see appendix 5). Aircraft have high transit speeds
and are particularly useful if the spill is remote. They can be used to treat
the oil during the time window for effective dispersion. However, aircraft
have limited payloads (1 to 20 tonnes) and limited endurance.
Ships will take much longer to reach a remote spill site. However, they
can carry a larger amount of dispersant and stay at the spill site for much
longer than aircraft. The disadvantage of low transit speed may be offset

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

somewhat by positioning suitably equipped vessels and dispersant

stockpiles near potential spill sites.
Since the effectiveness of dispersants is dependent upon the speed of
response, it is essential that all resources (trained personnel, aircraft,
ships, dispersant stockpiles) are readily available before an incident
occurs.
Factors to be considered in determining the most appropriate application
method are discussed in more detail in chapter 4.

2.3 Sensitive resources

The decision at the planning stage whether to include dispersants as a
possible response option will be influenced by:
& the risk of a spill occurring in the area; and
& the type and distribution of resources that could be affected by
an oil spill.

These resources may have high economic or natural values, or a

combination of the two. Examples of resources that are sensitive because
of their importance in natural ecosystems are:
& sea birds
& sea mammals
& mud/sand flats
& salt-marshes
& mangroves
& seagrass beds
& coral reefs
& shrimp/fish nurseries and spawning grounds

Examples of resources that are sensitive because of their importance in

the local or national economy include:
& marinas/harbours/ports
& dry docks
& water intakes
& fishing grounds/shellfish beds

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

& fishing fleets (boats and fishing gear)

& aquaculture practices
& tourist beaches

For contingency planning purposes, such sensitive resources can usefully

be mapped. The resulting ‘‘sensitivity maps’’ can then be used as a ready
reference in case of a spill situation to help operational decisions.
With specific regard to dispersant use, the maps will be of greatest benefit
if they highlight areas where dispersants should or should not be used.
Non-use recommendations may apply to a particular location throughout
the year, or may be restricted to particular times of year. For instance,
dispersant use may only need to be banned in a fish spawning area
during the spawning season. Temporal restrictions such as this should be
clearly shown on the map. The effects of dispersants or dispersed oil on
the various resources listed above are described in chapter 3. Figure 1
shows an example of a sensitivity map annotated with dispersant use/
non-use recommendations.
Ideally, the production of such a map should be the result of joint
discussions between all the parties likely to be included in spill response.
Where two closely juxtaposed resources are likely to be affected in
opposite ways by dispersants or dispersed oil, the parties involved should
reach agreement in advance on which resource has priority for protection.
This should be represented on the sensitivity map. This theme is
elaborated on in section 2.4.

2.4 Net environmental benefit analysis

2.4.1 Introduction
At the contingency planning stage it is necessary to weigh up the
advantages and disadvantages of using or not using dispersants in a
specific area during a particular time of the year. This should be done in
order to decide in advance whether the use or non-use of dispersants is
likely to give the greatest overall benefit to the environment. This is
known as net environmental benefit analysis.
However, the final decision on whether to use dispersants in combination
with, or instead of, any other method will depend on conditions specific
to the spill. In all cases, the aim of the spill response should be to reduce
the overall environmental impacts on both natural and economic

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

resources. The predicted trajectories and corresponding fate and effects of

untreated versus dispersed oil need to be considered to best identify
which spill response/control method will minimize the overall impact on
the environment and resources.

2.4.2 Factors to consider when assessing the net environmental benefit

To conduct a net environmental benefit analysis it is essential to have the
resources present in an area listed in order of the protection priority that
they should be given. Such a list should be drawn up during the
contingency planning stage and should consider factors such as possible
seasonal variations in the priorities. When drawing up such a list, both
natural and economic resources should be considered. In general, it can
be said that endangered species, highly productive areas, sheltered
habitats with poor flushing rates, and habitats that take a long time to
recover should receive top protection priority.
When drawing up the contingency plan, the environmental effects of
dispersed versus untreated oil for each area should identify areas where
dispersant use is not advisable and where it is advisable to a varying
degree. Section 3.4 provides an overview of the potential effects of
dispersed and untreated oil on the various habitats/resources. It is,
however, important that the habitats/resources are not viewed in isolation
from each other, since applying the decision taken for a particular habitat/
resource will affect adjacent ecosystems. For example, in an area where oil
occurs above a shallow-water submerged coral reef and is moving rapidly
towards a mangrove swamp it may be advisable to disperse the oil above
the reef. This may increase oil exposure of the corals, but it will prevent oil
from becoming incorporated into the mangrove sediments, from where it
will seep out over the years, forming a chronic pollution source for both
the mangrove and coral reef ecosystems. This scenario and others are
described in more detail at the end of this chapter.
Several elements of the net environmental benefit analysis for a particular
area are spill-specific and can only be answered at the time of the spill:
& How effective is dispersant application likely to be, in view of

factors such as the type and amount of oil spilled?

& Will the dispersed oil be diluted to low impact levels and, if so,

how long will it take to reach these levels?

& What is the estimated time scale for the recovery of the habitat?

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

A useful review of the available information on dispersants is Using Oil

Spill Dispersant on the Sea (National Research Council (1989)). In some
cases, the use of more than one response technique will be advisable to
reduce risks and any negative consequences.

2.4.3 Examples
Two scenarios are given to illustrate the process. The scenarios rely
heavily on figure 1, which is a sensitivity map of the area, and on table 1, a
summary of the data and decisions taken. The situations have been
simplified beyond typical real-life situations to illustrate key points of
decision making.
Scenario 1

In the first scenario, a one-hour-old, 100 tonne oil spill is drifting towards
a bird colony and a fish spawning ground; the shoreline is also
threatened. It is May and the bird colony is active, with some chicks in the
water. Located in shallow water, the spawning ground is active, with
many fries in the area. These are known to be sensitive to oil. The bird
colonies are predicted to be threatened within 24 hours, the spawning
ground within 36 hours and the shoreline within 48 hours. The birds are
particularly sensitive to non-dispersed oil, while the fish fry are
particularly sensitive to dispersed oil.
Response options are evaluated. Sea conditions permit mechanical
recovery, and suitable resources are available. Mechanical recovery could
result in some benefit to the shoreline, but probably not to the birds
because of the short time in which the oil is likely to reach them. Because
of the short time available and the relatively large area occupied by the
bird colony, protective booming of the colony is also considered
impracticable; instead, dispersant use is considered in order to benefit
the birds. However, there is concern that dispersed oil could lead to a
severe kill of fish fry, thereby causing possible damage to fish stocks.
Additionally, the bird species concerned is not threatened, and would
recover from losses.
In conclusion, the idea of dispersant use is abandoned. Mechanical
recovery equipment is dispatched immediately to attempt minimization of
losses to the shoreline.
This scenario illustrates the trade-offs often necessary between protection
of fish and birds.

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

Scenario 2

The second scenario involves a similar-sized spill but of a lighter crude oil.
The spill is about 12 hours away from a coral reef and will pass over this
en route to a mangrove stand. This oil would cause severe damage to the
mangrove stand and, if left, could leach out from mangrove sediments for
a long time, causing damage to the coral reef. The use of dispersants
could save the mangroves from severe damage. However, dispersing the
oil near the coral reef could cause some damage to the corals. Mechanical
countermeasures could reduce damage, but there is not sufficient time to
recover enough oil before contact with the mangroves occurs.
A decision is made to proceed with dispersants at once, to attempt to save
the mangroves. Subsequently, when more men and equipment are
available, a mechanical recovery crew is sent to retrieve undispersed oil
from the bay to prevent further damage to mangroves, oiling of shoreline
and possible back-leaching to the coral reef.

Figure 1 : Sensitivity map of the area for the two scenarios

Source: World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), Cambridge, UK.

10

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

Table 1: Summary of data and results of

decision-making for two scenarios

SPILL INFORMATION SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2

Oil type Medium crude Light crude
Quantity 100 tonnes 100 tonnes
Time since spill 1 hour 1 hour
Present location 5 nautical miles from 3 nautical miles from
bird colony coral reef
Resources threatened Spawning ground, bird Mangrove stand, coral
colony, shoreline reef

RESPONSE OPTIONS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2

Mechanical clean-up Yes, implement Possible, but not rapid
enough to reduce
damage to mangroves
Dispersant use Possible, but could cause Possible; could save
serious damage to fish fry mangroves
in spawning ground; this
is a trade-off for the birds
In-situ burning Too close to town Too close to town
Boom sensitive areas Possible, but could not Possible, but could not
be done in time to be done in time to
protect resources protect resources
Surveillance Will be done in all Will be done in all
circumstances circumstances

2.5 The relevance of the short time window for

dispersant planning

Planning policy on use of dispersants as one possible response option to

be considered in case of accidental oil pollution should form part of the
contingency planning process at the national level.
It is essential to have a clear definition of policy regarding the use of
dispersants to reduce the initial response time. The existence of a clearly
defined policy will significantly facilitate the decision-making process,
reducing it to consideration of only those parameters that are relevant to
the present spill situation.

11

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

A principle most commonly applied by the countries who have defined

such national policy comprises granting prior authorization to products
approved for use in territorial waters of the country concerned.
Competent national authorities should grant prior authorization for use
to approved dispersants. Approval may be given to those dispersants
which satisfy certain established and defined criteria. These most often
comprise effectiveness and toxicity criteria, although some countries also
require the products to satisfy criteria related to the biodegradability of
the product and/or dispersed oil and other physical criteria such as
viscosity, flashpoint, etc. The objective of an approval procedure should
be to select products with the best possible combination of relatively high
effectiveness and relatively low toxicity. Approvals are granted based on
tests to which the products are subjected (see appendix 2). Some
countries may wish to grant prior authorization for use to those
dispersants which have been approved by another country to save costs
and time.
Dispersants which have been given prior authorization for use by
competent national authorities should only be applied to oil slicks after
being granted final authorization for use. The granting of the final
authorization must be based on factors specific to each spill case. It
should be done by a responsible person or authority, preferably identified
before the occurrence of a spill. Each coastal State should endeavour to
designate zones, precisely defining their geographical boundaries, where
the use of dispersants is allowed (subject to prior authorization), limited
or prohibited.
National policy regarding the use of dispersants should, before adoption,
be discussed with all potentially interested parties (scientific community,
fishermen, oil and shipping industries, pressure groups, spill responders,
clean-up contractors, etc.). Their specific interests should be considered
when formulating such a policy to ensure that they fully co-operate in its
implementation. Like any other response techniques, logistics are
important factors to consider.

2.6 Requirements for assessing the effectiveness

of dispersant operations
The potentially short time window for response means that procedures
should be in place to mount a dispersant operation quickly if conditions
are appropriate. However, it is equally important to mount a monitoring
operation to help determine when the dispersant operation is no longer

12

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

effective or when the oil is adequately dispersed. Such a monitoring

operation should include measurement of subsurface oil concentration
and surface oil/emulsion properties.
In the initial stages of a dispersant spraying operation, surveillance may
be restricted to aerial observation. Sometimes, aerial observation is
sufficient as the dispersant can produce a visible plume of dispersed oil
just below the water surface; this is an orange to light brown cloud,
sometimes dark brown. This cloud appears more or less quickly,
depending on the sea state; under calm sea conditions, the extent of
the cloud can only be observed after several tens of minutes. Recent field
experiments have shown that enhanced oil concentrations can occur in
the water column following dispersant use, without the appearance of
plumes. These results suggest that dispersion can sometimes occur in the
absence of the usual visual indications, and therefore suggest that
subsurface oil concentrations should be measured in addition to the
conventional aerial observations. However, measuring subsurface oil
concentrations is unlikely to be practical in many cases, and until further
experiments have been carried out, the use of visual indications of
effectiveness should be continued.
In the later stages of an aerial operation or during shipborne spraying, it is
desirable to monitor subsurface oil concentration with a continuous
measurement device. Measurement of oil concentration before and
following application will give an indication of the effectiveness of
dispersants in promoting transfer of oil into the water column (see figure 2).
Surface sampling of the oil slick to measure water content and viscosity
will indicate the degree of weathering of the surface oil.
The dispersant spraying operations should be terminated at the point
when orange or brown plumes no longer form, and when subsurface
sampling suggests that the oil is no longer amenable to dispersants. An
indication of the latter is when subsurface oil concentrations are not
increased following dispersant application. However, one should be
careful not to terminate too soon, since emulsions take longer to
disappear and need higher treatment rates.

2.7 Compatibility with mechanical response methods

It has been suggested that the use of dispersants may cause negative
effects on other response methods.

13

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

Figure 2: Comparison of oil concentration below an

untreated slick (above) and a treated slick (below)

Figure 2 shows the increase in the volume of dispersed oil in the water column as a
result of a successful application of dispersant by aircraft. The figure comes from a trial
conducted by AEA Technology in the North Sea and shows oil concentrations below
untreated and treated oil slicks. The figure clearly shows an increase in volume of oil
dispersed (a 15- to 30-fold increase) as a result of dispersant treatment and this resulted
in a reduced persistence of the surface oil slick compared to the control slick. The x axis
represents distance along a transect along the full length of the 20 tonne experimental
slicks, the y axis represents depth in the water column in metres, and the oil
concentration in parts per million (ppm) measured by continuous-flow fluorometer is
given by the colour of the contour plot.
Source: Lunel, T. (1994)

14

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 2 – Planning for the use of dispersants

Dispersants promote the spreading of the surface slick as part of the

dispersion process. Thus, a partially effective dispersant operation could
result in a spreading of the surface slick without removal into the water
column. In such cases the encounter rate for containment systems will be
reduced.
However, there is little evidence to indicate that the physical process of
recovery of oil from the sea surface is inhibited. Evidence from field trials
indicates that dispersants may have an initial effect on the physical
properties of the treated oil/emulsion, but that within a few hours of
treatment the oil that has not been dispersed has similar characteristics to
oil which has not been treated.
Thus, the use of dispersants and mechanical recovery can be considered
at different stages of the operation:
& dispersion of oil and its recovery should not be attempted on the
same patch of oil simultaneously;
& the use of these two techniques can be considered sequentially;
and
& both methods can be used on different parts of the same
(relatively large) slick.

15

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO
 Chapter 3
Decision-making at the time of the spill
The foregoing chapter described the planning and data collection
necessary for effective dispersant application and countermeasures in
general. The decision-making process should not begin with the actual
spill. Decision-making should be a part of the preplanning process and
covered in the contingency plan. A proper organization should be in
place, with well-defined tasks and responsibilities. Equipment and
materials must be in place, along with trained operators, so that rapid
action is possible. Contingency plans should include arrangements for
rapidly obtaining information on sea state, meteorological conditions, and
oil characteristics. These data are required for decision-making on spill
countermeasures. The hydrography, bathymetry and ecological character-
istics of the shore and near-shore areas should be documented on
detailed sensitivity maps. These maps should also include the locations of
fisheries, bird sites, special habitats and human uses of areas. All this
information is required for considering the net environmental benefits of
spill countermeasures. While it is true that each spill is unique, it is
important to visualize a number of the most likely spill situations that
may occur and how they will develop to determine the best course of
action.

3.1 The decision tree involving dispersant use

Once an oil spill occurs, time is of the essence, particularly in regard to
the use of dispersant. Agreements and prior approval for dispersant use
are essential to facilitate a successful response.
A recommended procedure for deciding whether dispersants should be
used is shown in figure 3.
The first step is to collect as much information as possible on the oil spill.
This includes estimates of the size and location of the spill, characteristics
of the oil, and the current and predicted weather/wind conditions. A key
question will be whether a shoreline or sensitive resource is threatened. If
there is no threat, surveillance of the oil should continue, since it should
always be borne in mind that conditions may change quickly.

17

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

. Size and locations;

. Oil characteristics; Gather information on the oil spill
. Current & predicted weather.

IS THERE A NEED Continue surveillance;

NO
FOR RESPONSE ? mobilize for possible action

YES
(or possibly)

Evaluate the expected effectiveness of all options in

contingency plan for size/location/logistics of spill/weather conditions
(Use one or more options)

MECHANICAL
MECHANICAL DISPERSANT IN-SITU LET OIL COME ASHORE
DISPERSANT IN-SITU
RECOVERY
RECOVERY USE BURNING AND CLEAN SHORELINE*
USE BURNING

Evaluate the expected effectiveness of all options in contingency plan for

size/location/logistics of spill/weather conditions (Use one or more options)

Finalize net environmental benefit analysis; decide on response action(s)

Obtain approvals if necessary

Deploy resources –
start response action(s)

IS RESPONSE MEETING NO
EXPECTATIONS ?

YES

Continue until job is done

95070

Note: *Refer to section 3.1

Figure 3: Oil spill response decision tree

18

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

If a sensitive resource is threatened, all response options in the

contingency plan should be considered. Some options can be quickly
eliminated due to size/location/weather/logistics. In some cases, one or
more of the options may be appropriate to achieve the best possibility of
minimizing the environmental impact of the spill. Different areas of the
slick may be handled with different response techniques.
The anticipated effectiveness of each response technique should
be considered in the net environmental benefit analysis described in
section 2.4. Based on the net environmental benefit analysis, one or more
response options will be selected. If approvals are needed – for example,
for use of dispersant or for in-situ burning – they must be obtained within
hours. Therefore, a mechanism for approvals must be available in
advance. Preparations to mobilize equipment and plans to carry out
options that need approval should begin before the actual approval is
obtained, to save time.
Four options are considered in figure 3 – that is, mechanical recovery,
dispersant use, in-situ burning, and allowing the oil to come ashore. If this
last option is chosen, consideration should be given to protecting
sensitive shorelines by booming and to how the shoreline will be cleaned.
The expected effectiveness (or range of effectiveness) for each option
should be estimated, based on the available equipment, weather
conditions and logistics of the spill. Information to help develop these
estimates should be in the contingency plan, and additional guidance is
given in section 3.2.
Surveillance and monitoring of the effectiveness of the response options
should continue throughout the operation. If the effectiveness is not as
expected, the spill response should be modified to ensure that money,
time and effort are not wasted.

3.2 Outline of other spill response options

The response options considered here are aimed at minimizing the
overall environmental impact of the spill.
Each of these options requires monitoring for effectiveness. This manual
only gives a brief description of other response techniques. For further
details, the Manual on Oil Pollution, Section IV: Combating Oil Spills should
be referred to. If a particular countermeasure is not effective, resources
can be diverted to another technique that is more effective. Requirements

19

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

for assessing the effectiveness of dispersant operations are discussed in

section 2.6.

3.2.1 Mechanical
Mechanical containment and recovery of oil is the most desirable option,
but also the one most limited by wind, current and sea conditions.
Containment is most often accomplished with commercially available
booms. All booms have the limitation that they will not contain oil above
a maximum relative speed of about 0.5 m/s. Skimmers and sometimes
simple suction devices are used to recover oil from the water surface.
Many types of skimming devices exist, but some are limited in the
viscosity of oil that they can recover. The rate of recovery for skimmers
and the amount of storage available are often additional limiting factors.
The effectiveness of mechanical response techniques is highly dependent
on the spill situation.

3.2.2 In-situ burning (under consideration)

In-situ burning may be considered as a possible response option under
certain conditions, provided that there is no risk of the fire spreading to
cause injury to humans or damage to property.
In-situ burning has a number of limitations:
& The oil slick must have a minimum thickness of 2 mm to burn
on water. If the oil is not contained naturally (e.g. by a shore-
line), then it must be collected in a fire-resistant boom. The use of
fire-resistant booms means that in-situ burning cannot take place
at relative velocities exceeding 0.5 m/s.
& Water-in-oil emulsions burn poorly if at all.

One disadvantage of in-situ burning is that it involves the emission of

some air pollutants. It does, however, have the advantage that large
volumes of oil can be removed rapidly with little residue remaining, thus
minimizing the quantity of material remaining for ultimate disposal.

3.2.3 Let oil come ashore and clean shoreline

Quite often the prevailing wind and sea conditions are such that it is
impossible to prevent oil from reaching the shoreline. However, in some
cases it may be desirable to deliberately divert or deflect oil towards a
shoreline that can be relatively easily cleaned to protect more sensitive

20

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

resources nearby which may be under threat. This may be acceptable if

the shoreline has low social, environmental or economic value.

3.2.4 No direct action

Even in the case where a shoreline/resource is not threatened, it is
important to continue surveillance to verify that the oil is moving
according to the trajectory predicted by the model. The areal coverage
and indications of oil weathering (e.g. emulsion formation) should be
recorded with data on possible ecological damage.
Visual methods of surveillance are often the most practical and
economical methods. These are best done from the air so that a broad
overview can be obtained. Remote sensing with various instruments such
as infra-red/ultraviolet scanners, cameras and radar are also useful. Each
method has limitations and is subject to the inclusion of false targets.

3.3 Toxicity aspects

The possible toxic effects of dispersed oil in the water column are a
primary consideration. Since the toxicity varies with the dispersant type,
oil type and environmental conditions, experts in this area should be
consulted.
Information on concentrations of oil below dispersant-treated slicks
comes mainly from field experiments in open water. The results of
hundreds of analyses, from experiments in France, the United Kingdom,
Norway, the United States, and Canada, have been reported in the
scientific literature. The measured oil concentrations range from less than
1 ppm to 222 ppm. There is a reduction in concentration with both time
and depth (see figures 2 and 4). The highest concentration typically
occurs in the top metre of water during the hour after treatment
(see figure 4).
How damaging are such exposures to marine life? A detailed review by
the National Research Council (1989) concluded that ‘‘field exposures in
the water column for both untreated and chemically dispersed oils
generally are much lower than exposures required to cause mortality or
behavioural effects on a large number of species and life stages’’. This
conclusion is backed up by numerous laboratory studies. Particular
concern is often expressed about near-shore areas where shallow water
restricts the dilution potential. Near-shore information is available from
the SEARSPORT, TROPICS and BIOS experiments (see IPIECA (1993)

21

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

for further details), where the discharges involved were of premixed oil
and dispersant, deliberately released in shallow water. In the SEARSPORT
experiment, concentrations 10 cm above the sea-bed in shallow water
(not more than 3 m deep) peaked between 20 and 40 ppm, and
decreased to background levels within two tidal cycles. These experi-
ments showed no evidence of adverse biological effects. Other near-shore
information is available from OPEX experiments. These showed that the
direct effects of the oil on organisms in the water column, and the long-
term effects on organisms at the bottom of tidal flats, were worse in the
case of dispersant applications.

Figure 4

Graphs show depth–concentration profiles for three crude oils following dispersant
treatment. The data were obtained from sea trials off the New Jersey and California
coasts and show that dispersed oil concentrations diminish with time and depth, and at
a depth approaching 10 m are typically less than 1 ppm at any time.

Source: IPIECA (1993)

22

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

Considering extreme or ‘‘worst case’’ scenarios: in the TROPICS

experiment the average water depth was less than 1 m, and concentra-
tions of dispersed oil reached as high as 222 ppm. There were declines in
the abundance of corals and other reef organisms, reduced coral growth
rate in one species, and minor or no effects on seagrass. The highest
concentration recorded for the BIOS experiment was 160 ppm at 10 m
depth, but in this case the controlled discharge was subsurface. There
were marked acute behavioural effects on some of the subtidal fauna, but
no large-scale mortality.
There are many different laboratory procedures for testing toxicity. They
are useful for discriminating between high- and low-toxicity dispersants,
but cannot be used reliably for predicting environmental effects in the
field. The wealth of published toxicity data has to be carefully interpreted,
bearing in mind the various experimental conditions and the different
ways of assessing the organisms’ actual exposure to dispersants and oil.
Dispersant-only tests have shown that modern dispersants are much less
toxic than the first-generation ones. Toxicity testing now generally focuses
on the effects of the chemically dispersed oil compared with the effects of
untreated or physically dispersed oil.
The results given in figure 5 illustrate two general findings: first, that
different species have different sensitivities; and second, that exposures of
dispersed oil which kill test organisms are mostly greater than exposures
actually measured under experimentally dispersed slicks in the field.
Although different species have different sensitivities to oil, oil dispersants
and oil/dispersant mixtures, for any one species the rankings achieved for
a range of dispersants are broadly similar.
This publication does not address human health concerns surrounding
the use of dispersants. Material safety data sheets and an industrial
hygienist should be consulted on this matter.

3.4 Suggestions for dispersant use in different habitats

and with different resources
This section considers, one by one, the range of habitats and other
resources that may be affected by oil. For each, it is indicated what the
possible benefits or disadvantages of dispersant use might be.
Of course, a real-life scenario will most likely involve many resources, and
decisions have to be made on which resources should be given the

23

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

highest priority for protection. These are difficult decisions, which are
discussed in section 2.4 on net environmental benefit analysis.

Figure 5

Exposures to dispersed oil which caused 50% mortality in the test organisms, compared
with exposure measured in a sea trial. The units are ppm-h (the product of the
measured mean concentration and time) to 50% mortality. These units, expressing
overall exposure to the dispersed oil, have been used in several studies and facilitate
comparisons between different data sets. The assumption (for which there is
experimental evidence) is that organisms are affected both by oil concentrations and
by exposure time.
Note that fish will normally try to swim away from contaminated zones and thus limit
their actual exposure. Also, the more toxic light aromatic components of crude oil will
evaporate in the first few hours of the spill, before the oil is treated with dispersant. Thus
the toxicity of the dispersed oil will be less.
Source: IPIECA (1993)

24

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

Resources and habitats are listed in alphabetical order:

3.4.1 Amenity and tourist resources

Recreational areas, such as bathing beaches and boat marinas, are
important for some local economies, and dispersant use offshore is an
option for protecting these. Such areas are usually of low importance from
the biological point of view, and dispersant use may be considered even
relatively close to the shore.

3.4.2 Birds
Oiled birds commonly die of hypothermia and/or the effects of ingested
oil. Moreover, if oil is transferred to eggs, hatching success can be much
reduced. It is therefore important to protect bird habitats, and dispersant
spraying is one option for achieving this. Dispersants should be sprayed
as far from aggregations of birds as possible, to minimize the risk of
dispersant spray hitting the birds (with possibly damaging effects). There
are seasonal variations in the distribution of many bird species, so it may
not be necessary to protect habitats at all times of the year.

3.4.3 Coral reefs

In most cases, oil slicks will float over reefs without causing damage to the
submerged corals and associated organisms. Using dispersants close to
the reef is likely to increase the exposure to oil, with possible damage to
some of the organisms. As far as possible, dispersants should not be used
over or near coral reefs.
Occasionally, there is a danger of oil slicks becoming stranded on the
upper parts of coral reefs (the reef flats) during low tides. If this happens,
there is likely to be serious damage to the reef organisms. Damage can be
minimized by dispersant spraying of the slick before it reaches the reef, as
far away from the reef as possible.

3.4.4 Fish
There is no evidence that oil slicks floating in the open sea above free-
swimming fish have ever caused declines in fish populations. Dispersant
spraying in these conditions does not provide any advantages for the fish,
but neither are there likely to be deleterious effects if the dispersed oil is
rapidly diluted in deep water. Spraying may in addition protect fishing
gear from becoming oiled. In shallow water the dispersed oil in the water
column is more likely to reach concentrations where it may harm or taint

25

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

fish, particularly young ones. In general, therefore, dispersant use is not

recommended where fish are important, particularly in shallow-water
spawning and nursery areas.

3.4.5 Fish and shellfish mariculture facilities (near-shore)

Near-shore aquaculture facilities include moored fish cages and buoyed
ropes or nets for molluscs such as mussels and oysters. With these
facilities large-scale mortalities do not usually occur either with untreated
oil or dispersed oil. In both cases, there is likely to be tainting, or at least a
perception of a tainting problem, and as a consequence difficulties in
marketing the product. Dispersant use on slicks approaching aquaculture
structures may help minimize fouling and subsequent clean-up or
replacement of equipment (e.g. of timber and netting).

3.4.6 Gravel/cobble beaches

Gravel/cobble beaches usually have low biological productivity, but
stranded oil may penetrate below the surface, where it is relatively difficult
to clean. It may therefore be considered necessary to protect some gravel/
cobble beaches, and offshore dispersant application is an option for this.
Use of dispersant on these shorelines themselves is likely to cause the oil
to penetrate further into the gravel/cobbles.

3.4.7 Industrial facilities

Use of dispersant close to water intakes of industrial facilities, such as
desalination plants, power stations and refineries, may increase the
chances of oil passing under protective booms and entering the water
intakes. This can cause damage, so dispersant use should be avoided near
such intakes. If oil enters calm harbours and docks in an industrial area,
conditions are relatively good for physical removal of the oil.

3.4.8 Mangroves
Mangrove trees commonly die when oiled, and their death results in the
loss of habitat for a great diversity of birds, fish and invertebrates. Oiled
mangroves are difficult to clean, and in any case cleaning may not save the
trees if oil has already entered the sediments and damaged the root
systems. It is therefore of great importance to protect mangroves. They
tolerate dispersed oil, so dispersants may be used offshore from the
mangroves if necessary. Dispersant use may be considered even in
shallow near-shore water or creeks within the mangroves.

26

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

3.4.9 Marine mammals

Mammals which depend on their fur for insulation (sea otters, polar
bears, fur seals) are particularly vulnerable to oil. If fur is oiled, animals
may die of hypothermia and/or the toxic effects of oil ingested during
grooming. It is of great importance to protect the habitats of these species,
and dispersant use is a viable option. Ideally, application should be as far
from the mammal habitats as possible because the animals are sensitive to
disturbance, but if necessary dispersants may be used near or in the
habitats.

3.4.10 Mud flats

Oil can penetrate intertidal mud if there are biological pathways such as
worm and crab burrows or plant root systems. Serious biological damage
can result if much oil enters these burrows. In contrast, oil does not
penetrate easily into intertidal mud without such pathways, because such
sediments are waterlogged and have low porosity.
Biologically productive mud flats are often important feeding grounds for
birds, and dispersant use offshore is an option for protecting them.
Dispersant application should be as far offshore as possible, to minimize
the possibility of high concentrations of dispersed oil entering burrows.

3.4.11 Ponds used for aquaculture and salt production

In many parts of the world, pond systems are excavated along the
shoreline and connected to the sea through pipes or sluice gates. These
ponds are sometimes used for aquaculture (fish, prawns or crabs) and in
other cases are used as evaporation basins for salt production. Whatever
the use, it is undesirable for either untreated oil or dispersed oil to enter
the ponds. They can be temporarily shut off by closing pipes or sluice
gates, and the oil spill response should concentrate on removing oil from
near the water intakes as quickly as possible. This could involve
dispersant spraying provided there is good potential for rapid dilution
and removal of dispersed oil by water movements.

3.4.12 Rocky shores

Rocky shores exposed to wave action self-clean relatively quickly.
Sheltered rocky shores have relatively high biological productivity and
natural clean-up and biological recovery are relatively slow. Offshore
dispersant use is an option to protect sheltered rocky shores.

27

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

3.4.13 Salt-marshes
Salt-marshes are oil traps because they occur in sheltered areas and because
the marsh grasses and other plants can absorb and hold a lot of oil. Oiled
marshes are very difficult to clean and may be a threat to wildlife (especially
birds), so they have a high priority for protection. Dispersant use offshore is
a valid protection option. Marsh plants are quite tolerant of dispersed oil, so
dispersant use may be considered close to the marsh or in creeks.

3.4.14 Sandy beaches

Sandy beaches generally have low biological productivity. Those exposed
to heavy wave action naturally clean relatively quickly. If oiled, they are
relatively easy to clean. However, protection of sandy beaches by using
dispersants offshore may be important in special cases. For example:
& the top of the beach is used by turtles for egg-laying, and
the egg-laying season is approaching; or
& the beach is important for tourists, and the tourist season is
approaching.

3.4.15 Seagrass beds

There is a possibility that dispersed oil in the water column could affect
submerged seagrasses more than oil slicks floating on the surface above
them. As far as possible, dispersants should not be used over seagrass
beds in shallow water.

3.4.16 Shellfish (intertidal)

Shellfish on the shore (e.g. cockles, mussels, winkles) can be economic-
ally important. Moreover, in some parts of the world molluscs are
cultured commercially in the intertidal zone. If oil slicks are stranded in
such areas, the shellfish may die of toxic effects or smothering. Even if
mortality does not occur, the shellfish and the shore sediments will in any
case be contaminated such that marketing will be impossible for some
time. Offshore treatment of oil with dispersant can minimize these effects
but should be done as far from the shore as possible. High concentrations
of dispersed oil resulting from spraying close to the shore could also lead
to some tainting of shellfish.
Dispersant use close to shore is not recommended when shellfish are
harvested since the high concentrations of dispersed oil are likely to result
in shellfish tainting.

28

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 3 – Decision-making at the time of the spill

3.4.17 Shellfish (near-shore subtidal)

Shellfish of economic importance (for example scallops, lobsters) occur
in some near-shore subtidal areas. Oil slicks floating above such resources
are unlikely to harm them, but exposure to oil (and possible tainting) may
increase if dispersed oil enters the water column. Dispersant application
is therefore not recommended for oil slicks in near-shore water with
subtidal shellfish.

29

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO
 Chapter 4
Application
Due to weathering of the oil there is a short time window during which
dispersants work efficiently. This is generally in the order of 24 hours to a
few days (in case of an instantaneous release). Treatment operations
should therefore start as soon as possible.
The efficiency of dispersant treatment is also closely related to the way the
dispersants are applied. Poor treatment results have often been related to
inappropriate application of dispersants.
The choice of the application method and the operational procedures
have to be carefully considered.

4.1 General considerations on dispersant application at sea

For an effective treatment, the dispersant must be applied to the oil:
& in sufficient quantities to account for product losses, and

& by means of a spray, to obtain a uniform distribution of

dispersant over the oil and good dispersant/oil contact.

This can only be achieved by using specialized equipment that has been
routinely serviced (see appendix 5).
The quantity of concentrated dispersant required is proportional to the
amount of pollutant to be treated. Typical dispersant-to-oil ratios vary
from about 1:10 to 1:20 for concentrate dispersants, and 1:1 to 1:3 for
hydrocarbon-based dispersants. The manufacturer’s recommendations
should be referred to when determining the proper dispersant-to-oil ratio.
However, it is very difficult to determine the quantities of oil to be treated
in a given area since oil spilled at sea can quickly spread to occupy large
areas over which there is considerable variation in thickness.
The fineness of the spray is an important parameter for ensuring even
distribution and maximum dispersant/oil contact. Obtaining the correct
spray fineness will prevent:
& large dispersant droplets from sinking and thus being lost in the

water beneath the slick. Dispersants which are denser than

seawater or which are the water-based types tend to sink; and

31

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 4 – Application

& droplets which are too fine from being deflected from the
targeted oil by the wind.
Drops with an average diameter of 400 to 700 m are usually
recommended.
Concentrate dispersant can sometimes be applied pre-diluted in seawater.
However, neat application is strongly recommended as it is more efficient.

4.2 Application procedure

The precise application procedure depends on the application platform
chosen. The advantages/disadvantages of aerial and shipborne applica-
tion methods are discussed in section 2.2.2.
Wind conditions are important in dictating the direction of travel by
spraying aircraft and vessels:
& the success of aircraft application is strongly dependent on wind
direction. The flight direction must be parallel to the wind to
avoid dispersant being blown cross-wind, resulting in a large
sideways shift of the spray and an incorrect application rate. (The
use of smoke markers can help the aircraft to keep its flight track
parallel to the wind.)
& Shipboard application should be done into the wind to prevent
the ‘‘herding effect’’ of the dispersant from taking place.
Otherwise the smallest droplets of dispersant are carried in
front of the boat by the wind and the ship will push the oil on the
surface aside (herding effect). This will result in most of the
dispersant being applied onto clean water (see figure 6).
For both aircraft and ships, a wind speed of up to 25 to 30 knots is
probably an upper limit. Above these speeds the application becomes less
efficient, as sprayed dispersant is blown away by the wind and because
dispersant is applied onto vigorously breaking waves.
Dispersant application operations must be targeted:
& dispersant should not be applied to oil sheen, and
& dispersant should be applied to the thick parts of the slick (dull
grey to dark brown appearance).
A methodical procedure must be adopted. Dispersants should be applied
with parallel and continuous runs to be certain that the entire slick has

32

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 4 – Application

Figure 6: Dispersant application from ship

Source: CEDRE/IFP

been treated. The operational procedures to be followed are described in

appendix 6. Both aircraft and ships need to be guided towards the
thickest areas of the slick by a dedicated spotter aircraft flying overhead.

4.3 Tactical procedure

In case of extensive pollution and the simultaneous use of several
methods of dispersant application, the different operations must be co-
ordinated:
& the target allocated to each application method should be

determined in a way to optimize its use (e.g. helicopters, which

have limited range, would be directed towards the near-shore
area while large fixed-wing aircraft would logically be used for
offshore operations);
& the spill area should be divided into zones, and each zone should

be allocated to the different methods or group of methods of

applying dispersants;
& if several methods are used for treating the same area, it is

essential to have a spotter aircraft at the location.

It is important to treat the different parts of the slick in the correct
chronological order:
& if sufficient dispersant and application methods are available to
treat the entire quantity of oil, then the thickest parts of the slicks
should be treated first;

33

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Chapter 4 – Application

& if dispersant and/or application means are inadequate, only part

of the slick can be completely treated. If mechanical recovery is
possible, the thinnest parts of the slick (which can represent
large areas) should be treated with dispersants and the thickest
parts handled by mechanical recovery. Sheen, however, should
not be treated.

When managing the operations, it must be kept in mind that dispersant

should not be used simultaneously with other techniques (e.g. booming,
recovery) on the same part of the slick (see section 2.7).
In case of a continuous oil release the dispersant must be applied as close
to the source as possible.
Before an extensive treatment operation, a test must be done to ensure
that the treatment is effective (see section 4.5).

4.4 Logistics for large spills

The quantity of dispersant to have at hand is 5 to 10% of the amount of
oil to be treated (e.g. for a 10,000 t oil spill the amount of dispersant
required is between 500 and 1,000 t). Supplying an adequate quantity of
dispersant in a very short time to deal with a large spill can be a problem
that must be included in the contingency plan.
Similarly, it is often difficult to get enough spraying platforms (aircraft,
helicopters or vessels) to fully treat the spill at relatively short notice.
Other general logistical requirements have to be considered, such as a
spotter plane to direct the aircraft or vessels towards the parts of the
pollution to be treated. Large spray aircraft have specific logistical
requirements, such as airfields with adequate runways and refuelling
facilities, which must be considered.
If the operation is subject to logistical limitations, it is important to
optimize the use of what is available (see section 4.3).

4.5 Monitoring
During dispersant spraying operations it is necessary to check the results
and effects of the dispersant treatment.

4.5.1 Monitoring effectiveness

(This has been discussed in section 2.6.)

34

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Chapter 4 – Application

A good treatment can be characterized by the formation of a cloud of

dispersed oil just below the surface of the water. This cloud may appear
as a discoloration of the water varying from orange through light brown
to dark brown sometimes. Dispersants have, however, been shown to be
effective in the absence of a visible dispersed plume (see section 2.6).
With emulsified oil, the dispersant may be slower acting and it may be
difficult to observe a cloud.
4.5.2 Monitoring environmental effects
Monitoring environmental effects is an important part of oil spill
response. When dispersants are used, no monitoring is required
additional to that needed for other oil spill response techniques.
Fish and mobile organisms will try to move away from the oil spill.
Surface plankton may experience some additional mortality due to
dispersant use but this is not significant since rapid recolonization occurs.
Following a spill, it may be necessary to prohibit fishing and collection of
shellfish for consumption, regardless of whether dispersant was used or
not. To determine when the fisheries should be re-opened after such a
ban, the fish and shellfish should be monitored. The monitoring can be
carried out by having people on ‘‘taste panels’’ and/or by conducting
chemical analyses.

35

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO
 Appendix 1
General considerations on dispersants

1 Definition
Oil spill dispersants are mixtures of surface-active agents in one or more
organic solvents. They are specifically formulated to enhance the
dispersion of oil into the seawater column by reducing the interfacial
tension between oil and water. Natural or induced movement of water
causes a rapid distribution within the water mass of very fine oil droplets
formed by the dispersant action, thus enhancing the biodegradation
processes. Dispersants also prevent coalescence of oil droplets and re-
formation of the oil slick.

2 History of dispersants
The idea of applying the well-known principle of removing a greasy
substance by mixing it with a dispersing agent (soap, detergent) and
washing it with water was first proposed in the early sixties for dealing with
oil on beaches in the UK. Mixtures of dispersants and hydrocarbon solvents
(already used by the industry as industrial cleaners, degreasing agents for
engines, and tank cleaning agents) proved their efficiency in emulsifying
stranded or floating oil. These products were known to be highly toxic due
to their aromatic solvent content. It was, however, thought that the high
dilution capacity of the waters of the open sea would suffice to bring the
concentrations down below the levels lethal for marine life.
The first extensive use of these early dispersants, in response to the Torrey
Canyon oil spill off the English coast in March 1967, unfortunately
demonstrated that their toxicity was much too high and that they had a
devastating impact on the marine life which outweighed their efficiency as
pollution clean-up agents.
Very soon after the Torrey Canyon accident, new formulations appeared
on the market. These formulations were made up of less toxic surfactants
and the toxic aromatic solvents were replaced by much less toxic (1,000
times) low-aromatic or non-aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g. low-aromatic
kerosene or high-boiling solvents containing branched saturated hydro-
carbons). Although their efficiency was lower than that of the first
‘‘detergents’’, their very low toxicity rendered their use, even on a large
scale, environmentally acceptable. These new products became known as
‘‘second-generation’’ dispersants and are still in use today.

37

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Appendix 1 – General considerations on dispersants

Dispersants of the ‘‘third’’ generation, often referred to as ‘‘concentrates’’,

appeared by the mid seventies. These are mixtures of emulsifiers, wetting
agents and oxygenated solvents. They are very much less toxic than the
‘‘second-generation’’ dispersants, and can be used either pre-diluted with
seawater or neat. The introduction of concentrates, with higher
concentrations of active components and less solvents, made it possible
to use aircraft in spill response operations. Most of the products marketed
today belong in this category.
Since their appearance, dispersants have been used on numerous oil
spills of various sizes all over the world and they have become an
important tool for responding to oil spills. Development of the new
products was followed by the development of application techniques and
by significant scientific research in the field of the environmental effects of
dispersants and dispersed oil.

3 Nomenclature of currently available dispersants

Dispersants can be classified either by their generation number or their
type number, as shown in the table below:

STANDARD NAME BY NAME BY MODE OF TYPE OF

NAME GENERATION TYPE APPLICATION SOLVENT
Diluted, from Oxygenates
2 vessels (e.g. glycol
ethers) and
Concentrate 3rd Undiluted non-aromatic
dispersants (neat), from hydrocarbons
3 vessels and/or
aircraft
Conventional Undiluted Non-aromatic
dispersants 2nd 1 (neat), from hydrocarbons
vessels

It should be noted that the first-generation dispersants (‘‘detergents’’) are

no longer used today.

4 Composition of dispersants
Oil spill dispersants are composed of two main groups of components:
& surface-active agents (surfactants), and
& solvents.

38

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 1 – General considerations on dispersants

Surfactants are chemical compounds composed of molecules containing

both hydrophilic and oleophilic groups. Those with predominantly
oleophilic character tend to stabilize water-in-oil emulsions, while those
with mainly hydrophilic character stabilize oil-in-water emulsions. The
latter types are usually used in formulating dispersants. Surfactants are
divided into four groups (anionic, cationic, non-ionic and amphoteric),
but only non-ionic and anionic surfactants are used in modern dispersant
formulations.:
& Non-ionic surfactants: sorbitan esters of oleic or lauric acid,

ethoxylated sorbitan esters of oleic or lauric acid, polyethylene

glycol esters of oleic acid, ethoxylated and propoxylated fatty
alcohols, ethoxylated octylphenol.
& Anionic surfactants: sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate, sodium

ditridecanoyl sulfosuccinate.
Two or more surfactants are often combined to improve the performance
of the final product.
Solvents may be divided into three main groups: (1) water, (2) water-
miscible hydroxy compounds, and (3) hydrocarbons. Hydroxy com-
pounds used in dispersant formulations include ethylene glycol monobutyl
ether, diethylene glycol monomethyl ether and diethylene glycol mono-
butyl ether. Hydrocarbon solvents used in modern dispersants include
odourless, low-aromatic kerosene and high-boiling solvents containing
branched saturated hydrocarbons.
A number of dispersants in use today are marketed as biodegrading
dispersants. These are formulated with the addition of nutrients
(nitrogen, phosphorus) which promote the natural biodegradation
processes by micro-organisms present in seawater.
Modern dispersants have the following general composition:
& Conventional (second-generation) dispersants:
^ 10 to 25% surfactant

^ hydrocarbon solvent;

& Concentrate (third-generation) dispersants:

^ 25 to 60% surfactant

^ polar organic solvent or mixed with hydrocarbon solvent.

39

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Appendix 1 – General considerations on dispersants

5 Dispersant dosages and application rates

The amount of dispersant that needs to be applied to a certain quantity of

oil to achieve a desired level of dispersion depends on the dose (oil to
dispersant ratio) recommended by the manufacturer or determined
experimentally.
Although recommended doses vary from one dispersant to another, and
for each dispersant the dose varies with the type of oil and its viscosity, in
spill situations it is often necessary to apply approximate quantities
calculated on the basis of certain average figures.
Figures for concentrate dispersants are in the range of 5 to 10% for oil of
up to 1,000 cSt, and 10 to 15% for treatment of oil between 1,000 and
2,000 cSt. For treatment of oils with viscosities of more than 2,000 cSt, the
efficiency of treatment is low. In general terms, hydrocarbon-based
(conventional) dispersants are usually applied in doses of approximately
30 to 50% of estimated oil quantity for low-viscosity oil (up to 1,000 cSt)
and 100% for oils in the viscosity range of 1,000 to 2,000 cSt.
Required application rates also depend on the type of oil spilled, its
thickness, and prevailing conditions. Since an oil slick does not have
uniform thickness and since it is difficult to determine the thickness
precisely, it is necessary to calculate application rates based on generally
accepted rules for the assessment of oil thickness. Dark patches of oil are
approximately 0.1 mm thick and areas covered by thin oil sheen are
estimated to be between 0.001 and 0.01 mm.
Regardless of the spraying device used, application rate is determined by
the discharge rate of the dispersant pump, speed of the vessel or aircraft
and the width of the area covered by the spray (swath). The relationship
between these variables is the following:
Application rate ¼ discharge rate/speed 6 swath

Given the constant swath of the available spraying equipment, the

required application rate for each particular slick area can be achieved by
either:
(a) selecting the appropriate discharge rate of the dispersant
pump, or by
(b) selecting the appropriate speed of the vessel or aircraft.

40

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 1 – General considerations on dispersants

Very often an average treatment rate of 100 litres of concentrate

dispersant per hectare, corresponding to oil thickness of 0.1 mm and a
dose of 1:10, is used in approximate calculations for the use of
dispersants.

6 Facts about dispersants

1 Most modern dispersants are relatively non-toxic and are less toxic
than the oils they disperse.
2 Dispersing oil where there is sufficient water for dilution has never
shown toxic effects on marine or benthic biota.
3 Toxic effects of using dispersant could be evidenced where there is
little dilution potential, as in shallow bays or over shallow coral
reefs.
4 Dispersants will generally remove a certain percentage or portion of
an oil from the sea surface if the particular dispersant is
‘‘compatible’’ or effective with the oil type/composition, etc.
5 The percentage of oil removed depends on oil and dispersant
composition and on sea energy.
6 Many oils will disperse naturally in higher seas. Dispersants serve to
enhance this process.
7 Heavier oils generally disperse poorly. This is oil-composition-
dependent.
8 Due to weathering processes, the time window for effective
dispersion can be short, often one to two days.
9 Dispersants function by assisting oil break-up into small droplets
which behave as if neutrally buoyant in the water column.
10 Dispersant effectiveness is also dependent on proper application.
This is achieved by applying an optimal droplet size on the thicker
portion of the oil slick.

41

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 2
The testing of dispersants
Dispersants used in oil spill response should have the approval of the
designated competent national authority. Many governments have
already developed standard test procedures to evaluate commercially
available formulations and have developed lists of approved dispersants.
It is recommended that individual governments should adopt one of
these developed lists or develop their own approved list, based on test
methods and species appropriate to their individual situations.
Although there are many different ways of testing the effectiveness,
toxicity and biodegradation of dispersants, there is no consensus between
governments on the best methods. What follows is an outline of the
generally agreed tests which should be considered when a country wishes
to decide whether a particular dispersant is suitable for its purposes. The
three basic tests (effectiveness test, toxicity test, and biodegradability test)
are described briefly below. Since the toxicity of most currently available
dispersants is low, effectiveness of dispersants is, at present, considered
the most important selection criterion.

1 Effectiveness test
Typically, in effectiveness tests, the tested dispersant is mechanically
mixed with a definite oil under standard conditions. Subsequently, the
degree of dispersion can be assessed by either visual observation or by
more objective assessment, such as measurement of the dispersed oil
concentration or the oil droplet size distribution. Such methods provide a
relative ranking of different dispersants for the chosen test oil. This in turn
allows the regulatory authority to choose those dispersants which are
most effective for the oils likely to be spilled in their waters.
Different laboratory test methods will generate different values of
dispersant efficiency and even different rankings of dispersant effective-
ness, depending largely on the mixing energy applied in the test system.
Work is currently under way to develop tests which re-create the oil
droplet size and dispersant efficiency observed at sea. Thus, it is essential
that the regulatory authorities use laboratory dispersant tests as a
screening mechanism to eliminate the least effective dispersants and do not
use the quoted efficiency as a prediction of dispersant efficiency in an
operational situation.

42

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 2 – The testing of dispersants

2 Toxicity test
Toxicity tests usually involve dispersants, dispersed oil (oil/dispersant
mixture) and sometimes oil alone. Test organisms include adult and
larval forms of fish, arthropods (usually decapod crustaceans), molluscs
(pelecypods), annelids (polychaetes), and algae. Ideally, test species
should be selected among locally significant populations. Approval tests
are usually acute, based on a single species, and measure lethal/sublethal
effects. The measure of LC50 in a determined period (usually 24 or 96
hours) is the most common criterion, although more complex methods
have been devised.
The main goals of these tests should be:
(a) to determine the relative toxicity of a certain dispersant versus
other previously tested products;
(b) to assure that dispersants do not significantly increase acute (or
chronic) toxicity of dispersed petroleum hydrocarbons; and
(c) to determine factors that modify dispersant toxicity, or enhance
or ameliorate oil toxicity under natural conditions.

Goals (a) and (b) are addressed by most toxicity tests. However, goal (c)
is often not taken into consideration because many of the toxicity tests do
not re-create the oil concentrations (1 to 100 ppm) and dispersed oil
droplet sizes (1 to 70 m diameter) which have been measured under
slicks treated at sea.
New approaches to toxicity testing have been developed which relate
acute toxicity to concentrations of pollutants that can be expected under
field conditions. Some results from this approach are given in the
literature. They show toxicity expressed as an index relating time of
exposure to concentrations. We recommend that governments should
adopt such tests.

3 Biodegradability tests
Some countries also test dispersants and dispersant/oil mixtures for
biodegradability. There is no consensus on a standard method for testing
biodegradability of dispersants, and various adapted standard tests on
organic material are in use.
Note: A number of test methods exist in various countries which are
described in the technical literature.

43

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 3
Fate of oil

Weathering
When crude oil is spilled at sea, the weathering processes start to change
the physical and chemical properties of the oil. The main factors that
control the rate and extent of these changes are:
(a) the properties of the crude oil, and
(b) the prevailing conditions (temperature, wind speed and sea
state).
Figure A-1 illustrates the weathering processes that occur at sea, and
figure A-2 gives an indication of their relative importance with time.

Evaporation
As the oil spreads over the water and forms a thin film, evaporation of the
more volatile components of the crude oil will occur. Evaporation is one
of the most important processes that removes oil from the water surface.
The rate and extent of evaporation depend on the vapour pressure of the
oil components (which also controls the distillation properties of the
crude oil), the prevailing temperature, and wind speed. Components with
boiling points lower than 200oC will evaporate within 24 hours and
components with boiling points below 270oC evaporate within several
days. The loss of the more volatile components will cause the remaining
oil to have higher viscosity, pour point, and flashpoint than the original
crude oil.

Dissolution of oil components

Some of the lower molecular weight components, especially the aromatic
compounds such as benzene and the xylenes, dissolve in water only to a
small extent. However, these compounds are also volatile, so most of
them will evaporate. Only a small volume of the oil spill will be lost as
dissolved components, although this will have a very important influence
on acute toxicity to marine organisms.

44

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO
Figure A-1: Weathering processes of crude oil on water

45
Appendix 3 – Fate of oil

Source: IKU Petroleum Research, Trondheim, Norway

Appendix 3 – Fate of oil

Figure A-2: Relative importance of weathering processes with time

Source: Environment Canada

Photo-oxidation
Exposure to the UV radiation of sunlight will cause the more polar oil
components to be oxidized. This will cause a slight increase in water
solubility and will promote water-in-oil emulsification.

Biodegradation
Seawater contains many kinds of micro-organisms that can use
hydrocarbons as an energy source. In case of an oil spill, the local
concentration of these micro-organisms will rapidly rise. The most easily
biodegraded oil components are the n-alkanes (paraffins). The rate of
biodegradation can be low and is limited by factors such as the
temperature and the availability of oxygen and of other nutrient sources
such as nitrogen and phosphate.

Sedimentation
Even after extensive weathering, very few crude oil residues will have
densities higher than that of seawater (1.024 g/ml). However, under

46

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 3 – Fate of oil

turbulent conditions in shallow water, some oil may stick to particles of

sediment/silt and may sink.

Water-in-oil (w/o) emulsification

Water-in-oil (w/o) emulsification is the most important process that
causes spilled oil to persist at the sea surface. The formation of w/o
emulsions greatly increases the volume of pollutant and the emulsion has
a much higher viscosity than that of the original oil.
Water can be incorporated into oil to form w/o emulsions in several ways
at an oil spill. Breaking waves will disperse oil into the water as droplets.
The larger oil droplets will float back up to the surface and may trap small
droplets of water in the oil as they recombine with the slick. The effect of
breaking waves can cause the production of water-filled ‘‘bubbles’’ of oil
that also rejoin the slick and incorporate water. Water can also be
incorporated directly into the oil by small-scale wave-like instabilities at
the water/oil interface.
The rate at which water is incorporated depends on the composition of
the oil and the prevailing sea state. Initially the w/o emulsions formed are
unstable and will break down into oil and water with breaking waves. As
the viscosity of the oils increases, due to evaporative loss, the emulsions
become more stable and persistent. The maximum water content,
typically 70 to 75% of the volume for weathered crude oils, is relatively
independent of the water salinity. The asphaltene and wax contents of an
oil affect the rate of formation and stability of w/o emulsions. Precipitated
asphaltenes and associated waxes form a mechanically resilient film
which resists coalescence.
A w/o emulsion has a much higher viscosity than the original crude oil or
the oil residue formed by evaporation. The viscosity of a w/o emulsion
depends on water content, the viscosity of the evaporated oil residue, and
the water droplet size. After prolonged weathering, the water droplet size
is reduced (see figure A-3) and the oil viscosity increased. This produces
extremely viscous w/o emulsions, with viscosities in excess of 50,000 cP,
commonly referred to as ‘‘chocolate mousse’’.

Natural dispersion
Breaking waves will convert the oil slick into oil droplets with sizes
ranging from 1 to 1000 m in diameter. These will be mixed into the
water column. Oil droplets with diameters less than 100 m will float

47

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Appendix 3 – Fate of oil

Figure A-3: Effect of mixing time on water droplet

size in a water-in-oil emulsion
Source: CEDRE, Brest, France

back to the surface only very slowly. Due to vertical and horizontal
turbulences of the water, these will be repeatedly pushed back into the
water column before they can reach the surface, and can be considered
permanently dispersed. Larger oil droplets will be retained in the water
column at higher sea states.
The rate of natural dispersion of a slick in moderate conditions is about
0.5 to 2% of the volume per hour during the initial stages of a spill.
However, it decreases rapidly as w/o emulsification occurs, due to the
increase in viscosity and due to breaking waves converting less of the oil
into small droplets.

Spreading
When crude oil is spilled at sea, it normally spreads very rapidly. A highly
viscous oil or an oil that is well below its pour point will spread at a lower
rate. The prevailing wind and current conditions will cause the oil to
spread unevenly. Oils spread mainly in the downwind direction with very
large variations in slick thickness. As droplets of temporarily dispersed oil
resurface in calm water they rapidly spread out to form sheen, which is
less than 1 m thick. Thicker areas of w/o emulsion are formed; these can
be up to several millimetres thick.

Drifting
As the oil is subjected to the weathering processes described above, the
slick will be transported on the surface of the sea under the influence of

48

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 3 – Fate of oil

wind and current. Wind and waves create a current in the water which, at
the surface, is about 3% of the wind speed. The influence of the wind
decreases rapidly with depth. At 1 to 2 m the current is reduced to about
1% of the wind speed, with a Coriolis (effect due to the earth’s rotation)
deviation of about 30o to 40o to the right in the northern hemisphere, and
to the left in the southern hemisphere. Oil which is dispersed in the water
column will move more slowly than that remaining on the surface. Figure
A-4 illustrates the effect of wind and current on oil slick movement. The
magnitude of the Coriolis effect is dependent on latitude.

Figure A-4: Effect of wind and current on oil slick movement

Source: CEDRE, Brest, France

49

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 50
Appendix 4
Examples of oil dispersibility and properties
Oil Origin Density Viscosity Low-Energy High-Energy
610 -3(kg/m3)1 (cP)1 Dispersibility Dispersibility
(vol %)2 (vol %)3
Aboozar Iran 0.893 37 10* 70*
Arabian Heavy Saudi Arabia 0.891 41 5* 60*
Arabian Light Saudi Arabia 0.858 14 25 90
Arabian Medium Saudi Arabia 0.878 29 10 80
ASMB Alberta, Canada 0.839 9 30 90
Barrow Island Australia 0.841 2 30 70*
Basrah Heavy Iraq 0.905 86
Basrah Light Iraq 0.856 15
Basrah Medium Iraq 0.870 41
BCF 24 Venezuela 0.913 125 15 60*
Belayim Egypt 0.889 51
Berri Saudi Arabia 0.838 6
Brass River Nigeria 0.820 4
Brent North Sea, UK 0.837 6 45
Bunker C 0.983 45000 0 0
Cat Cracking Feed 0.914 780 5

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Daqing (Taching) China 0.870 5000000 0 0
Diesel Fuel 0.809 3
Dos Cuadras California, USA 0.900 51 15 40*
Dubai Dubai 0.870 13
o
1 At 15 C; viscous products measured at shear rate of 1/s for freshly spilled oil.
2 Values from swirling flask test; values are average of at least 6 runs; blanks indicate no values available; * indicates values are estimated from relevant experimental data
3 Values from high-energy test; values are average of at least 2 runs; blanks indicate no values available; * indicates values are estimated from relevant experimental data
 Oil Origin Density Viscosity Low-Energy High-Energy
610 -3(kg/m3)1 (cP)1 Dispersibility Dispersibility
(vol %)2 (vol %)3
East Zeit Mix Egypt 0.830 6
Forcados Blend Nigeria 0.877 10
Foroozan Iran 0.869 15
Fuel Oil No.1 (J.P.-1) 0.799 1
Fuel Oil No.1 (J.P.-4) 0.751 1
Fuel Oil No.1 (Kerosene) 0.827 1 70 90
Fuel Oil No.2 0.855 4 70 90*
Fuel Oil – Medium Bunker/fuel mix 0.979 8200 5 10*
Fuel Oil – Heavy Bunker/fuel mix 0.980 15000 0 5
Galeota Mix Trinidad 0.861 8 20* 50*
Gasoline 0.709 1
Green Canyon Gulf of Mexico, USA 0.892 39 5
Gullfaks North Sea, Norway 0.870 13 20
Hondo California, USA 0.936 735 0
IF-30 Bunker 0.935 236
Iranian Heavy Iran 0.876 20 10
Iranian Light Iran 0.856 11 40* 80*

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Khalda Egypt 0.834 4
Kirkuk Blend Iraq 0.849 13
Kuwait Kuwait 0.872 22 5 70
Lago Angola 0.891 153 0 10
Lago Medio Venezuela 0.872 41 15 60
Louisiana Gulf of Mexico, USA 0.852 8 10 80
Lucula Angola 0.857 43 5 10*
Malongo Angola 0.870 63 5 10*
o
1 At 15 C; viscous products measured at shear rate of 1/s for freshly spilled oil.
2 Values from swirling flask test; values are average of at least 6 runs; blanks indicate no values available; * indicates values are estimated from relevant experimental data
3 Values from high-energy test; values are average of at least 2 runs; blanks indicate no values available; * indicates values are estimated from relevant experimental data

51
 52
Oil Origin Density Viscosity Low-Energy High-Energy
610 -3(kg/m3)1 (cP)1 Dispersibility Dispersibility
(vol %)2 (vol %)3
Marine Diesel 0.862 1 50 80
Marine IFO 180 0.979 8200 5 10
Maya Mexico 0.926 280 0 5*
Murban Abu Dhabi, UAE 0.828 7 10 70
North Slope Alaska, USA 0.894 23 10 50
Orimulsion Venezuela 1.012 622 50 50
Appendix 3 – Fate of oil

Oseberg North Sea, Norway 0.852 10 30 80

Point Arguello Comingled California, USA 0.925 532 5*
Qua Iboe Nigeria 0.845 6
Santa Clara California 0.920 304 50
Sockeye California, USA 0.897 45 5
Soroosh Iran 0.945 1380
Statfjord North Sea, UK/Norway 0.835 6 35 80
Sumatran Heavy Indonesia 0.931 118000 0
Sumatran Light Indonesia 0.860 323000 0
Takula Angola 0.864 110 5
Tapis Blend Malaysia 0.797 3
Udang Indonesia 0.970 10700 0
West Texas Intermediate Texas, USA 0.842 7 30 80
Zaire Zaire 0.872 15100 5
Zakum Abu Dhabi, UAE 0.822 4

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

o
1 At 15 C; viscous products measured at shear rate of 1/s for freshly spilled oil.
2 Values from swirling flask test; values are average of at least 6 runs; blanks indicate no values available; * indicates values are estimated from relevant experimental data
3 Values from high-energy test; values are average of at least 2 runs; blanks indicate no values available; * indicates values are estimated from relevant experimental data
 Appendix 5
Review of dispersant
application methods
Dispersant can be applied from aircraft or ships

1 Treatment from aircraft

Undiluted, concentrated dispersants are used in aerial treatment.
Dispersants are sprayed by means of equipment derived from systems
used for spraying agricultural chemicals. The equipment always includes
a pump (sometimes air-driven) and spray units equipped with nozzles or
calibrated holes for dispersant distribution. Field trials performed to
assess the quality of aerial treatment showed that the uniformity of the
treatment is very sensitive to flight conditions during spraying. The flight
path should be into the wind direction, and the altitude of the aircraft
should be as low as possible.

1.1 Equipment adapted for helicopters

This usually consists of self-contained compact assemblies (dispersant
tank, motor-driven pump and spray units) suspended by a sling from the
helicopter, often referred to as a ‘‘spray bucket’’. This system has the
advantage of not requiring any modification to the aircraft, and its easy use
means that the same unit can be used with different helicopters according
to their availability. The carrying capability of the helicopter must,
however, be compatible with the tank capacity of the equipment. This
ranges from about 500 to 3,000 l of dispersant according to the model.
The use of helicopters will be limited by the distance to a spill, which means
that their use will be restricted to coastal zones or to areas near to a landing
pad. With distant and isolated oil spills it is vital to install a field heliport
with full logistical support (dispersant and kerosene) at the closest point of
the shore to minimize transit flight times. Under usual flight conditions,
treatment rates vary from 80 to 200 l/ha over a width of about 15 to 20 m.

1.2 Equipment adapted for fixed-wing aircraft

This type of equipment is integrated into the aircraft; the dispersant tank
and pump are positioned in or under the fuselage and the spray units are
fixed on the wings or the tail.

53

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Appendix 5 – Review of dispersant application methods

1.2.1 Single-engined aircraft

Single-engined aircraft used for dispersant spraying are small planes
designed for agricultural purposes which have been converted for
dispersant spraying. They are highly manoeuvrable, they only require a
rudimentary airfield, and they are suitable for spraying because of their
ability to fly at low speeds (about 100 to 200 km/h) and at low altitudes
(a few metres). On the other hand, their capacity is limited (0.5 to 1.5 t of
dispersant), as is their range of operation. This restricts them to missions
near the coast.
Rates of about 50 to 100 l/ha over widths of 15 to 20 m can be attained.

1.2.2 Multi-engined aircraft

These are generally large planes with substantial dispersant capacity (5 to
20 t), capable of carrying out missions at great distances from the coast
(several hundred kilometres) with the security offered by more than one
engine. On the other hand, they need to fly at high speeds (200 to
400 km/h) and at higher altitudes (10 to 30 m), which can decrease the
precision of the treatment. They also require considerable logistic
support, such as an airport with a long runway (1,000 to 2,500 m) and
supplies of dispersant and fuel.
The treatment rates usually obtained are about 50 to 100 l/ha over
effective widths of 20 to 40 m. Developments have been made to increase
the treatment rates for planes with large carrying capabilities so that they
can be used for treating thick patches of oil (about 1 mm). Dispersants are
often sprayed from the tail of the aircraft to keep the spray pattern well
concentrated along the plane trajectory. Due to their poor manoeuvr-
ability, this type of aircraft should be used only for large slicks.

2 Treatment from ships

2.1 Treatment with concentrated dispersants pre-diluted in seawater

Concentrate dispersants can be applied to the oil after pre-dilution in sea-
water (the dispersant-to-water ratio should be equal to or greater than
10%). It should be noted, however, that conventional dispersants are
used undiluted and require independent equipment consisting of a pump
and spray units similar to those mentioned in paragraph 2.2 of this
appendix.

54

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 5 – Review of dispersant application methods

2.1.1 Treatment by means of an eductor

Dispersant may be diluted in seawater by using an eductor connected to
the ship’s fire main; at the downstream end of the circuit, the product is
sprayed onto the pollutant from spray units or special offset projection
nozzles.
The dilution of the dispersant in the water should not fall below 10%, to
ensure that the application is acceptably effective. This cannot always be
attained since the operation of an eductor is very sensitive to any
disturbances (e.g. pressure variation, dirt, etc.).
In this system the water and dispersant flow rates are constant. The
operator can only control whether to stop or continue the treatment by
either opening or closing the dispersant supply. Generally, two 5 m
spraying booms or offset projection nozzles with a similar range are
mounted onto the eductor. The vessel has to adapt its speed (often
between 4 and 6 knots) in accordance with the installation flow rate to
obtain a suitable treatment rate of about 100 l/ha.
In addition to application by spraying booms, dispersants may also be
applied from ships using specially equipped fire monitors with an eductor
system. While the dispersant effectiveness is somewhat lower, the method
has the advantage of being readily used on a variety of offshore support
vessels such as those used in drilling operations.

2.1.2 Treatment using self-contained equipment

Other types of self-contained equipment with their own pumps have been
developed in a number of countries. They consist of two pumps (one for
seawater, the other for dispersant) which supply the sprayers.
The application rate of most of these units may be adjusted (between
certain limits) by modifying the dilution rate (from 10 to 30%). This can
be done by adjusting the dispersant pump delivery. This facility is very
useful since it enables some adjustment of the treatment rate in terms of
the quantity of oil to be dispersed (e.g. variations of the dispersant rate
between 100 and 250 l/ha).
These systems usually operate with two spraying boom units, which,
depending on the model, vary from 5 to 10 m in length. The speed of
treatment may vary between 4 and 8 knots. Mixing devices (mixing
panels, plastic chains) may be mounted downstream from the sprayers to
provide the energy necessary to break up the oil once the dispersant has

55

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Appendix 5 – Review of dispersant application methods

been applied. However, the efficiency of these devices is rather limited

and insufficient when there is little natural mixing energy of the sea
through wave action.
Care must be taken with regard to the bow wave, which tends to push the
pollutant far away from the ship, possibly beyond the spray units. To
prevent this, the present trend is to place the equipment in the bow of the
vessel and to apply the dispersant to the oil before the bow wave passes.
In this way the mixing energy provided by the wave is used to break up
the oil.
2.2 Treatment with concentrated dispersants applied undiluted
Various studies have shown that dispersants when pre-diluted in sea-
water are less effective (especially with oils with viscosities greater than
500 cSt). The present trend is to use undiluted dispersants. Undiluted
dispersants may be applied by means of an air-blast sprayer or by
modified spray unit systems.
2.2.1 Treatment using air-blast sprayers
In this system, derived from agricultural equipment, the dispersant is
injected into the powerful air flow from an axial fan. This ensures that the
dispersant is accurately diffused onto the pollutant. It has a range of about
20 to 25 m.
This light and compact system, which lacks spray units projecting on
both sides of the vessels, seems convenient to use. By adjusting the
quantities of dispersant injected into the fan, the spraying rate can be
modified according to the thickness of the various parts of the slick.
However, the distribution of a dispersant on the oil is very uneven and
variations in rate exceeding 100% must be expected.
This device is highly sensitive to the wind. Headwind spraying can
strongly reduce the spraying range, while a cross-wind spraying causes
uncontrolled application rates.
2.2.2 Treatment using spray unit systems
These systems, like those mentioned in paragraph 2.2 of this appendix,
are composed of a pump supplying a pair of spray units, generally located
in the bow of the ship so as to take advantage of the bow wave mentioned
above. However, in this case, the volume of dispersant which is spread is
much smaller. The jets from the spray nozzles are weaker and are more
likely to be deflected by the wind. To avoid any wind-drifting, particular

56

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 5 – Review of dispersant application methods

attention must be paid to the spraying parameters (e.g. pressure, type of

nozzle, etc.) so that the droplets are not too fine. The equipment must
also be placed such that the nozzles are as low as possible above the water
surface.
These systems generally have a single delivery rate, with a correspond-
ingly constant treatment rate, determined by the size of the nozzles used.
The associated spray units may be as long as 15 m (on the largest
models).
Some systems use a number of nozzles of various sizes which are
supplied by independent circuits. This enables the dispersant delivery
rate to be varied according to the number and type of nozzles
simultaneously in service. The treatment dose may thereby be modified
as a function of the quantity of oil to be treated (e.g. from 50 to 350 l/ha at
7 knots).
The largest types of application systems can offer treatment capabilities
comparable with those of aircraft, and treatment speeds of 8 knots allow a
theoretical treatment area of 36 km2/h.

57

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 6
Dispersant application at sea:
operational procedure

1 Area to be treated
Areas of the slick of medium to large thicknesses are treated by adjusting
the proportion of dispersing agent as best possible, or by making several
runs. Thin areas of the slick, which are characterized by iridescence,
should not be treated.
Note: after several days of weathering, the pollution may appear as thick
patches of ‘‘chocolate mousse’’ with clear edges; the viscosity of the oil is
then too high for the dispersing agent to be able to act effectively.

2 Methods to be followed and those to be avoided

Adopt a methodical procedure.
What must be done What must be avoided
Commence the treatment from the edge Cutting and breaking up
of the slicks to the border of medium the slick by running over
thicknesses. it in all directions. It soon
becomes impossible to
Treat with parallel and continuous runs spot and treat correctly
to cover the entire area properly. the entire slick.
Treat with the axis of the wind and, for
shipboard application only, against the wind
to guarantee optimum spraying conditions.
For aerial application, take into account
the time of response of the equipment and
the drift of the drops due to the wind for
starting and stopping the spraying operations.

3 Aerial dispersant application

GENERAL CASE: Treat against the wind or, if applicable, downwind
(Note: The smoke bombs can help in making out the
slick and indicating the direction of the wind). See
figure A-5.

58

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Appendix 6 – Dispersant application at sea: operational procedure

smoke generator

wind

smoke generator

Figure A-5
Source: Merlin, F. and C. Bocard (1989)
SPECIFIC CASE: If the oil is concentrated in a narrow strip across the
wind: treat by small successive runs in the axis of the
wind or, if applicable, treat cross-wind, taking into
account the transverse drift of the dispersing agent.
See figure A-6.

Figure A-6
Source: Merlin, F. and C. Bocard (1989)

59

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

Appendix 6 – Dispersant application at sea: operational procedure

4 Shipboard dispersant application

GENERAL CASE: Treat preferably into the wind. See figure A-7.

Figure A-7
Source: Bocard, C. and F. Merlin (1987)

SPECIFIC CASE: Case where the oil has gathered in narrow cross-wind
strips: treat following the strips, but only with the
downwind spraying equipment. See figure A-8.

Figure A-8
Source: Bocard, C. and F. Merlin (1987)

60

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 References
Bocard, C. and F. Merlin (1987). Utilisation des dispersants pour lutter
contre des déversements de pétrole en mer : Manuel de traitement des nappes
par bateau. Centre de documentation de recherche et d’expérimentations
sur les pollutions des eaux/Institut français du pétrole.
IMO (1995). Manual on Oil Pollution, Section II: Contingency Planning.
International Maritime Organization, London, UK.
IMO (1988). Manual on Oil Pollution, Section IV: Combating Oil Spills.
International Maritime Organization, London, UK.
IPIECA (1993). Dispersants and their Role in Oil Spill Response. IPIECA
Report Series Volume 5. International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association, London, UK.
Lunel, T. (1994). Dispersion of a Large Experimental Slick by Aerial
Application of Dispersant. Proceedings, 17th Arctic and Marine Oil Spill
Programme, Canada, pp. 951–78.
Merlin, F. and C. Bocard (1989). Utilisation des dispersants pour lutter
contre des déversements de pétrole en mer : Manuel de traitement des nappes
par voie aérienne. Centre de documentation de recherche et d’expér-
imentations sur les pollutions des eaux/Institut français du pétrole.
National Research Council (1989). Using Oil Spill Dispersant on the Sea,
National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.
Whiticar, S., M. Bobra, M.F. Fingas, P. Jokuty, P. Liuzzo, S. Callaghan,
F. Ackerman and J. Cao (1993). ‘‘A Catalogue of Crude Oil and Oil
Product Properties’’ (1992 edition). Environment Canada Manuscript
Report Number EE-144, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 643 pp.

61

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO

 Further reading
BONN AGREEMENT (1990). Counter Pollution Manual, Chapter 20:
Dispersants
(Note: Chapter 20 is undergoing revision and is expected to be published
in May 1996).
Merlin, F., C. Bocard and G. Castaing (1989). Optimisation of
dispersant application especially by ship. 1989 Oil Spill Conference in
San Antonio (TX).
IMO/UNEP: Regional Information System; Part D, Operational Guides
and Technical Documents; Section 2, Guidelines for the Use of
Dispersants for Combating Oil Pollution at Sea in the Mediterranean
Region, REMPEC.
EXXON (1994). EXXON dispersant application guidelines. EXXON
Research and Engineering Company, USA.

62

Licensed to DRTC for 1 copy. © IMO