Paper ID # 210, 1999 International Oil Spill Conference
QUANTIFICATION OF NET ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFIT FOR FUTURE OIL SPILLS
Tim Lunel
AEA Technology, National Environmental Technology Centre , Culham, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 3DB,
UK (e-mail: Tim.Lunel@aeat.co.uk).
Jenifer M. Baker
Clock Cottage, Church Street, Ruyton-XI-Towns, Shrewsbury SY4 1LA, UK
ABSTRACT: Net Environmental Benefit Analysis
(NEBA) is increasingly used as a framework to assess
the environmental benefits and disadvantages of a
chosen response action. This analysis can be used to
account for political and economic impacts as well as
the effects on the natural environment. Until recently
the discussion has focused on qualitative assessments
due to the lack of quantitative information collected at
spills. This paper uses examples of best practice of
NEBA from different spills around the world to outline
the information that should be collected at future spills
in order to determine the level of Net Environmental
Benefit that has been achieved by the response
operation. In the first instance immediate feedback may
well provide information which aids decision making at
the time of the incident. However, a key role for this
information is also to enable responders around the
world to establish best practice for a wide range of
environmental sensitivities. Case histories of Net
Environmental Benefits will provide a basis for the
overall contingency planning process, recognising that
post-spill decisions are best and most rapidly made in
the light of pre-spill analyses, consultations and
agreements by all the appropriate organisations.
Introduction
Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) means
weighing the advantages and disadvantages of different
oil spill responses and comparing them with the
advantages and disadvantages of natural cleanup. This
approach, as a concept, has been widely recognised as
useful for response planning. Its usefulness can be
enhanced if advantages and disadvantages can be
quantified. This paper considers the available
information and identifies areas where more information
would be particularly beneficial.
One approach to quantification is to look at whole
case histories but in reality, most spills are inadequately
documented for NEBA analyses. In particular, it is not
surprising that quantitative data about the relationships
between response methods and mass balances are few -
it is notoriously difficult to measure the outcomes of
individual response methods during the intense activity
following a spill. However, it has been possible to make
some assessment of the Exxon Valdez, the Braer, and
the Sea Empress incidents.
Another approach is to draw together existing
information from experimental projects, each of which
gives a partial picture but which give a broader picture
when combined. For example (with respect to the water
column) information from field experiments on oil
concentrations under variously treated slicks can be
used together with laboratory toxicity test information
on the sensitivity of plankton or fish larvae. However, it
is important to calibrate the experimental information
against real spill conditions.
This paper will firstly describe the different levels of
decision making (strategic, tactical and operational)
where NEBA is a useful approach to adopt. It will then
describe methods that can be used to calculate a net oil
budget and how these can be linked to the sensitivity of
the resources impacted in order to provide a quantified
NEBA. Finally, illustrations are provided on how these
methods can be used at the strategic, tactical and
operational level.
Different levels of NEBA
It is proposed that NEBA can be applied at three main
levels, which correspond to the tiered approach to oil
spill response (IPIECA 1991) and more particularly to
the associated levels of sensitivity map - operational,
tactical and strategic (IMO/IPIECA 1996). The tiered
response approach distinguishes the following types of
spill:
• Tier 1. Small localised spills at fixed installations (such
as oil terminals);
• Tier 2. Medium sized spills, possibly some way from
industry facilities and potentially having a greater
impact on the environment;
• Tier 3. Major accidents (e.g. collisions, explosions or
blowouts) causing spills of thousands of tonnes and
having the potential for causing considerable
environmental damage over a wide area.
It follows that uses of both sensitivity maps and
NEBA range from practical site-specific shore
protection and clean-up, to strategic planning on a
regional scale for major accidents in remote areas:
• Strategic NEBA applies, for example, when a slick is at
sea and strategic decisions have to made as whether to
monitor and take no further action, to recover the oil at
sea, to disperse the oil, or to let the oil strand on the
shoreline and remove the oil from the beach.
• Tactical NEBA is appropriate, for example, once the oil
has come into near-shore waters or a bay when it is
necessary to make decisions about which areas of
coastline to protect and which to use as sacrificial
beaches.
• Operational NEBA can be used by responders in order
to decide whether it is appropriate to clean a particular
area of oiled coastline and how vigorous the clean up
should be.
By definition, a Tier 1 spill should involve decision
making at the operational (or at most tactical) NEBA
 level. However, especially in the case of a Tier 3 spill, it
is likely that different levels of NEBA will be applicable
at different stages during the response. For example,
when a large spill occurs many miles offshore a
strategic level NEBA would be appropriate, taking into
account the important resources in all the possible
directions that the oil slicks may travel. At a later stage
in the spill oil may have moved close to a particular
shoreline type, or be stranded on it, and there will be a
need for detailed operational NEBA for that particular
area. At each of these stages in a single Tier 3 spill, Net
Environmental Benefit Analysis can be used to guide
decision making.
NET OIL BUDGET
NET ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
QUANTIFIED NET ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Calculating a net oil budget
The calculation of oil budgets for real spills by their
very nature contain assumptions and approximations,
the calculation of a Net oil budget will contain
additional assumptions on the extent to which the
response operation has altered the oil budget.
The process of obtaining the best estimate of a net oil
budget to measure the success of the response is
illustrated here with reference to best practice from a
range of spills.
Volume of oil spilt. The first stage in the process is to
establish the volume of oil released. This in itself is
often not a straightforward process and requires
information from a variety of sources such as: tank dips;
ship’s cargo and fuel gauges, remote sensing
(qualitative information); pipeline pumping rates,
pipeline volume; and duration of release.
Atmosphere. Evaporation has a profound effect on
the way oil behaves, by encouraging the formation of a
North Sea Captain Spill, August 1997:
• Heavy Fuel Oil component of Sea Empress, February 1996:
• Braer, January 1993 (Gullfaks):
• Exxon Valdez, March 1989 (Alaskan North Slope):
• Sea Empress, February 1996 (Forties Blend):
• Idoho Pipeline spill, January 1998 (Nigerian Light):
The process of NEBA quantification
Quantification of NEBA involves consideration of
how different response methods affect:
• Net Oil Budget: the CHANGE in partitioning of oil
between different environmental components such as
various shore types, subtidal sediments, the water
column, or complete loss through natural degradation as
a result of human intervention.
• Net Environmental Impacts: the CHANGE in short and
long-term outcomes for biota in different environmental
components as a result of the NET oil budget.
persistent water-in-oil emulsion. It also reduces the
acute (short-timescale) toxicity of the oil remaining on
the sea surface since the most toxic components are lost
to the atmosphere. The total percentage of the crude oil
which is lost by evaporation is largely governed by its
composition and is not affected to a significant degree
by the response measures employed. The environmental
conditions, such as low temperatures, or response
options, for example dispersing the oil into the water
column, can affect the rate of evaporation.
An estimate of the volume of oil evaporated at an
incident can be derived from an oil specific weathering
study. These should be conducted in advance of spill so
that the information is available to help guide response
strategy at the time of a spill. The following illustrates
the range in percentage of the spilt oil evaporating
which has been predicted using oil specific weathering
studies:
0.2-0.5%
2-5%
20-25%
20-30%
35-45%
35-45%
 However, oil weathering studies will only provide a
prediction of the volume of oil lost by evaporation. The
best estimate of the volume of oil evaporated can be
obtained by taking surface samples of the oil (a
minimum of 5 samples) during the incident itself and
determining the composition of the oil remaining on the
sea surface relative to the crude oil spilt initially. In the
Sea Empress, 8 samples which had been on the surface
Figure 1. Evaporation of Forties Blend showing Sea Empress samples and data collected during controlled
experiments in the North Sea.
Water surface. Initially the residue of the oil after
evaporation will remain on the sea surface. Over time
emulsification increases the volume on the water
surface and mechanical recovery, dispersion and
shoreline stranding reduces the volume.
Nearshore and shoreline. Following the Exxon
Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, Shoreline
Cleanup Assessment Teams (SCAT) carried out much
more shore assessment than has been done for any other
spill, as a basis for making decisions about cleanup
techniques. The standardised methods developed have
subsequently been used as a model for other spills (an
example is Environment Canada’s Field Guide to the
Documentation and Description of Oiled Shorelines,
Owens and Sergy 1994). SCAT objectives were
assessment of the presence, distribution, and amount of
surface and subsurface oil, and provision of information
needed to make environmentally sound decisions on
cleanup techniques (bearing in mind previous
experience with different types of shore). The oiling
assessment included estimates of surface oiling length,
width, thickness, % oil distribution and oil character;
and subsurface oil concentration, character, thickness
and depth of penetration of the oiled layer. One of the
many conclusions was that the combined oil cover for
the Sound study sites dropped from 46% of the total
for between 9 and 37 hours, and showed that 35-45% of
the volume of the oil had evaporated. A high level of
confidence could be placed in these estimates because
the samples obtained during the incident itself could be
related to detailed measurements made during a sea trial
with the same oil type (Forties Blend crude oil) under
similar meteorological conditions (Figure 1):
observed area in May 1989, to 39% in August 1989, to
12% by January 1990, and to less than 2% by
September 1990 (Owens 1991). It was possible to relate
these losses to both the beach cleaning programme and
to natural removal.
The need to establish good practice world-wide is
emphasised by the fact that 7 years on at the Sea
Empress spill, the lessons from the Exxon Valdez spill
were not implemented and one of the findings was that
the shoreline surveys were planned outside of the
response operation and were not completed in sufficient
time to be of use to the immediate cleanup operation.
This is contrary to American experience which has
shown that a methodology can be fully integrated with
cleanup operations, as the name Shoreline Clean-up
Assessment Team (SCAT) implies. Consequently, the
UK is in the process of adopting SCAT compatible
survey forms which for operational requirements are
being simplified but will include the basic information
of impacted area dimensions, oil thickness and oil type.
Sea bed. The main mechanism for incorporation of a
significant volume of oil in the sea bed is interaction
between sediment suspended in nearshore waters and
dispersed oil. Other mechanisms such as
biosedimentation through the packaging of dispersed oil
in the form of copepod faecal pellets have also been
suggested but are not likely to result in high local
concentration with a significant environmental impact.
Dispersed oil in the water column is buoyant and will
have a tendency to rise back to the surface in the
absence of the mixing processes which keep the small
1-70 µm droplets suspended in the water column.
Dispersed oil will not sink unless it becomes associated
with suspended sediment.
In waters with high sediment loads (generally in
estuaries or bays) it is important to mount a sediment
monitoring programme which defines the level and
extent of sediment contamination. One of the most
detailed studies of subtidal sediments was that following
the No 2 fuel oil spill from the barge Florida in
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, 1969 (Sanders et al.
1980). Results from a grab-sampling programme
showed a range of sediment oil concentrations up to
about 400 ppm, and the faunal changes observed could
be correlated with the severity of oiling. In the case of
the 1977 Tsesis spill in the Baltic, estimates from
sediment trap data indicated that at least 20 tonnes of oil
(equivalent to 0.5 gm per square meter) reached the
bottom (Johansson et al. 1980).
In open water oil spills, association of dispersed oil
with sediment is not a major transport pathway for the
oil. An exception to this was the open water oil spill at
the Braer incident. The severe storm conditions at the
Braer oil spill in January 1993 (with winds gusting to
70 knots) meant that the resuspended sediment load in
the coastal waters off Shetland was particularly high at
the time of the spill, more typical of the levels found in
an estuarine environment. The post spill sediment
monitoring found two major areas where oil
contaminated fine sediments had settled out into
sedimentary basins (ESGOSS 1994). The sampling
indicated that up to 30% of the oil spilt ended up in
these deep water sediment sinks.
As a result of the Braer experience responders have
become sensitised to the possibility of dispersed oil
becoming associated with sediments. Therefore, it is
likely in many spills that some initial modelling/analysis
of potential sedimentation areas will be required
followed initially by a limited sediment sampling survey
which can be expanded if sediment bound oil is found
by the monitoring survey.
Water column. Since dispersed and soluble
components of the oil dilute rapidly over a large volume
it is not possible to obtain an accurate of the volume of
oil partitioning into the water column. This component,
therefore has to be calculated by difference (subtracting
the percentage of oil in each of the other components
from the total volume spilt) in most spills.
In the Sea Empress, fluorometry measurements at sea
showed that dispersion was significant in determining
the fate of the spilt oil (Lunel et al, 1996; 1997).
However, the rapid dilution of the dispersed oil together
with the large volume over which the oil was distributed
means that it is difficult to accurately quantify the
dispersed oil budget. Subtracting the volume
evaporated, the volume recovered at sea, and the
volume stranded on the shoreline from the total budget
suggests that 46-59% of the oil dispersed through a
combination of natural and enhanced dispersion.
Distinguishing between natural and chemical
dispersion. Since chemical dispersion is enhancing the
rate of the naturally occurring dispersion process,
separating the effects of these two components requires
intensive fluorometry measuring oil concentration.
However, the need to implement in situ monitoring to
determine the effectiveness of dispersant operations is
now being more generally accepted by both National
Governments and Industry. The information required
for operational efficiency is the key to providing the
data required to assess the relative significance of
natural and chemical dispersion processes. However it is
necessary to collect quantitative information on oil
concentration to make these assessments, the
monitoring carried out in the Gulf of Mexico in January
1998 at the High Island Pipeline (Henry, 1998a) and
M/V Red Seagull (Henry, 1998b) was qualitative in
nature and could not therefore be used to estimate the
relative significance of natural and chemical dispersion.
At the Sea Empress incident, intensive monitoring
implemented for the first time at a major spill allowed
an estimate to be made of the split between natural and
enhanced dispersion by comparing the concentrations of
dispersed oil at the incident with those in controlled
field trials (Lunel et al., 1996; 1997; SEEEC 1998):
• Natural dispersion: 7-21%
• Enhanced dispersion: 24-52%
On the basis of these estimates, the dispersant
operation increased the amount of oil dispersed by at
least 17,000 tonnes, with an estimated 27,000 tonnes
being dispersed in total. Since 446 tonnes of dispersant
were used, each tonne of dispersant resulted in an extra
60 tonnes of oil being dispersed (with a range of 38-82
tonnes per tonne of dispersant).
Mechanical recovery. At sea recovery is rarely an
important route for removal of oil from the water
surface (ITOPF, 1991). Mechanical recovery also
normally results in the removal of a large volume of
water in addition to the oil, therefore, the recovery
operation must measure not only the total volume of the
recovered material but also its water content. Although
not a technically difficult operation, this information is
often not collected at an incident. For example, at the
Sea Empress it was reported that approximately 7,260
tonnes of liquid waste was recovered by skimming and
transferred to the Texaco refinery. However only one
qualitative estimate was made of the water content of
this liquid waste: on the 23 February during the transfer
of 192 tonnes of oil/water, the recovered material was
described as 85% water. Therefore, in constructing the
mass balance a value of 10-20% oil was used for all the
liquid waste recovered at sea which suggests that 1-2%
of the total spilt was recovered. At future spills a
minimum of 5 spot samples of the water content of any
mechanically recovered oily water would be valuable in
providing an accurate estimate of the volume
mechanically recovered. This information would not
only be useful in a net environmental benefit analysis
but also in assessing the cost effectiveness of the
response.
Net oil budget. In order to quantify the benefits a
particular response strategy it is firstly necessary to use
the methods described above to quantify the change in
physical partitioning of the oil that a response strategy is
likely to put in place. Table 1 below shows the actual
mass balance determined at the Braer (ESGOSS, 1994),
Sea Empress (Lunel et. al. 1997; SEEEC 1998) and
Exxon Valdez (Galt et al. 1991; Wolfe et. al. 1993) spills
and the likely mass balance in the absence of response
operations:
 Table 1. The crude oil mass balance for the Sea Empress, the Braer and the Exxon Valdez spills after the first stage
response at sea and on the shoreline compared with the estimated mass balance if no response had been carried out.

Oil Partitioning (%) Braer 1993 Sea Empress 1996 Exxon Valdez 1989
(Where “-” is entered into the table
this indicates no data is available.) Actual No response Actual No response Actual No response
Atmosphere 20-25 20-25 35-45 35-45 20-30 20-30
Nearshore or shoreline 0 0 5-7 34-58 22-51 26-59
Seabed 20-30 20-30 - - - -
Water column 45-60 45-60 46-59 7-21 20-25 20-25
Chemically dispersed 0 0 24-52 0 - -
Mechanically recovered at sea 0 0 1-3 0 4-8 0

By comparing the actual mass balance with the mass
balance that is estimated in the absence of a response
operation it is possible to derive the Net Oil Budget for
these 3 spills as indicated in table 2. The change in
partitioning as a result of the response is expressed both
as percentage of the total mass balance and by the
relative significance of the change in partitioning
relative to the natural process (i.e. the ratio between the
partitioning estimated following a response and the
partitioning estimated had there been no response)

Table 2. The Net Oil Budget crude oil mass balance for the Sea Empress, the Braer and the Exxon Valdez spills in
terms of both the total % of oil spilt and the significance relative to the natural partitioning at the incident.

Net Oil Budget (%) Percentage of total Significance relative The effect of the response
budget to natural partitioning
Braer, 1993 0 0 None - Fate governed by natural processes
Exxon Valdez, 1989 4-8 % 1.2-1.4 fold Slight reduction in the volume of oil
stranding on the shoreline
Sea Empress, 1996 27-53 % 5-11 fold Significant reduction in the volume of oil
stranding on the shoreline
25-52 % 2-8 fold Significant increase in volume of oil
partitioned into the water column

The greatest effect on the partitioning of the oil fate is
demonstrated at the Sea Empress spill. The volume
impacting nearshore and shoreline resources was
reduced by 5-11 fold while the volume partitioned into
the water column was increased by 2-8 fold. Hence, this
spill is used in the section on strategic net
environmental benefit to indicate how the quantitative
net oil budget can be linked to the environmentally
sensitive resources that benefit or suffer from the
response operation. But first it is necessary to provide a
framework under which to link this quantitative net oil
budget to the environmental impacts of a spill.
Net environmental impact
In order to make use of this net oil budget information
in decision-making, the predicted change in oil
partitioning must be linked to the likely impacts on the
resources at risk. In most cases, it is unrealistic to look
for fully quantitative biological studies for the purposes
of NEBA. Such studies would be costly and lengthy,
partly because:
• natural variables (both spatial and temporal) would have
to be taken into account, because these exert the primary
control over species distribution and abundance;
• the marine environment is in a constant state of change,
and natural fluctuations need to be distinguished from
pollution effects;
Therefore, despite the limitations associated with
using data which is not site-specific to the area
potentially at risk from oiling, a broad environmental
sensitivity classification taking into account the inherent
sensitivity of the resource at risk will be of benefit in
determining the likely net environmental impacts of
different response options both at the contingency
planning stage and the spill response.
Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI)
With respect to shorelines, the basic principles are that
sensitivity to oil increases with increasing shelter of the
shore from wave action, penetration of oil into the
substratum, natural oil retention times on the shore, and
biological productivity of shore organisms. For the
purposes of sensitivity mapping (IMO/IPIECA, 1996)
shores are ranked using these principles, often using a
10 point scale known as an environmental sensitivity
index (ESI). The typical range is from ESI 1 (exposed
rocky shores, lowest sensitivity to ESI 10 (marshes and
mangroves, highest sensitivity).
Other ecological resources at risk include coral reefs,
seagrass and kelp beds, and wildlife such as turtles,
seabirds and mammals. From the socio-economic point
of view both commercial and subsistence fishing need
to be considered, for example fishing areas, shellfish
beds, fish and crustacean nursery areas, fish traps and
aquaculture facilities. Other features include boat
facilities such as harbours and slipways, industrial water
intakes, recreational resources such as amenity beaches,
and sites of cultural or historical significance. While
emphasising that the specific circumstances of the spill
could change the sensitivity rankings markedly, we
propose the following broad sensitivity rankings as an
extension from the rankings proposed by Michel and
Dahlin (1993) for shorelines. The basis of these
qualitative rankings are broadly on the basis of likely
recovery times although some consideration has also
been given to economic impacts:
 Table 3. Summary of Ecological, Wildlife and Socio-Economic Sensitivities
Sensitivity Ecological Wildlife Socio-economic
1. Least Exposed steep rock
Open sea water surface
Open sea water column
2. Low Exposed rock platforms Offshore fish stocks
Offshore sediments
3. Low Fine grained firm sand Local amenity beaches*
4. Medium Medium-coarse sand Offshore dolphins and whales
5. Medium Mixed coarse sediments Cultural/historical sites
Nearshore water surface
Nearshore water column
6. Medium Gravel, boulders, cobble Riprap/gabions
7. Medium Exposed tidal flats Marinas
Nearshore sediments Water intakes
Kelp beds
Deeper coral reef zones
8. High Sheltered rock Nearshore seals, dolphins and Fish breeding and nursery
Subtidal seagrass beds Whales areas*
9. High Sheltered tidal flats Estuaries for migrating Nearshore shellfish
Intertidal seagrass beds shorebirds* Seabed aquaculture
Seal haulouts* Nearshore fishing gear
10. Highest Mangroves Turtle beaches* Intertidal shellfish
Marshes Seabird colonies* Intertidal and upper water
Shallow coral reef zones Otters column aquaculture
Intertidal fish traps
Key amenity/tourist beaches*
Politically sensitive sites
* Indicates that the sensitivity of the resource may differ markedly at different times of year
This overview is based upon extensive case history experience; more information is available in IPIECA (1991a, 1992,
1993a, 1994, 1995, 1997) and IMO/IPIECA (1996). However, it needs to be reviewed whenever possible in the light of
new case history experience.

It must be emphasised this is a generalised ranking of
sensitivities to oiling, ESI rankings must be determined
for the specific region under consideration taking into
account local, national and international priorities in the
contingency planning process. The ESI rankings should
not be solely driven by the measure of ecological
recovery times. Economic and political measures will be
key in the response operation itself and should be
factored into the ESI ranking. For example, in Brunei
there are high priority areas of mangrove forest (ESI 10
on this classification) on the basis of ecological
sensitivity. However, there is a region of equal
sensitivity (i.e. ESI 10) along the Brunei coast at the
location of the Palace of the Sultan of Oman. This is
clearly an appropriate ranking since the sensitivity of
this location will in the event of spill drive response
decisions. There are no right or wrong answers in the
classification of sensitivities. The important step in
planning and response is to identify what the
sensitivities are for that National or Local context and to
assign them an ESI ranking along the lines outlined
above.
Quantified net environmental benefit analysis
If the response techniques employed were all
potentially equally successful at preventing impacts on
the resources identified, then the ESI ranking could be
used directly to determine the protection priority.
However, not all response measures are will be equally
successful. Thus, account must be taken of the degree to
which the response option will change the partitioning
of the oil and hence change the degree of environmental
impact. The calculation of the potential net oil budget
allows a method of quantifying the potential net
environmental impacts of different courses of action.
Choosing an appropriate response strategy on the basis
of this process is what is defined in this paper as
quantified NEBA.
For example, a spill of a dispersible crude oil in the
vicinity of a nearshore fish farm with tides advecting the
dispersed phase towards the facility, classified as ESI 9,
is likely to result in tainting of the fish by the natural
dispersion of the surface slick. Using dispersants might,
for example, be predicted to result in a net oil budget
with a 2-8 fold increase in oil partitioning into the water
column (as documented at the Sea Empress - see net oil
budget section). Increasing the exposure of the fish to
the dispersed oil is not likely to affect the marketability
of the fish significantly. In either case the fish will be
unmarketable due to taint. Therefore, it may be
appropriate to prevent or limit the level of oiling of a
cobble beach (classified here as ESI 6) which is also in
the potential impact zone at the expense of putting more
oil into the water column. Once oiled, cobble zones are
likely to be difficult to clean and oil may leach back into
nearshore waters over a long period of time to produce a
chronic oil pollution problem for the region. Reducing
the volume of oil stranding on cobble zones, (for
example, by using dispersants the shoreline oiling was
reduced by 5-11 fold in the Sea Empress) can allow
natural clean up processes to remove the oil rapidly
from the shoreline or allow in situ techniques such as
surf washing and bioremediation to be considered.
Thus, an estimate of the net oil budget at the time of
the spill taking into account the potential effectiveness
of the response might give a higher protection priority
to an ESI 6 than and ESI 9. At another time of year,
 where for example where natural clean up over a winter
season is expected to remove oil stranding on an
exposed cobble beach, the decision might be taken to
attempt to protect the ESI 9 even though the chances of
success are low.
The importance of quantified net environmental
benefit analysis, even if some of the data is semi-
quantitative, is that it incorporates estimates of the
success of the response methods into decision making.
Data should be collected during the response
operation itself using the methods outlined in this paper,
firstly, to determine whether the assumptions made in
the quantified NEBA are holding so that the response
operation can be modified if necessary. Secondly, to
learn from spill experience to optimise response
strategies and techniques for future spills. Case histories
which are relevant to the area and the response methods
being assessed are key in using NEBA in the
contingency planning process. The following 3 sections
outline the lessons learnt on strategic, tactical and
operational NEBA from monitoring carried out at real
spill incidents.
Strategic net environmental benefit analysis
The physical removal of oil from the water surface
decreases overall damage, by reducing the threat to ESI 9
birds, mammals and shorelines. Dispersants may break
up a slick and so reduce the threat to birds, mammals
and shorelines; but the dispersed oil enters the water ESI 8
column. In deep open waters it is rapidly diluted, but
there is often concern about the potential effects in ESI 2
shallow waters where it may increase the threat to
organisms such as fish larvae. Unless the shoreline
consists of easily accessible firm sand, strategic Net
Environmental Benefit Analysis is likely to point
towards response operations which minimise the impact
to nearshore and shoreline components.
An informative case history is the offshore dispersant-
spraying response to the Sea Empress spill off
southwest Wales, which led to a particularly large
change in oil partitioning. As discussed in the section on
calculating a net oil budget, it is calculated that the
volume impacting the nearshore and shoreline resources
was reduced by 5-11 fold, while the volume partitioned
into the water column was increased by 2-8 fold. The
advantages in terms of reduced oiling, and possible
disadvantages are summarised below as far as possible.
It is concluded that the advantages outweighed the
disadvantages (SEEEC, 1998).
Benefits of reducing the volume of oil impacting
nearshore and shoreline exposure by 5-11 fold.
ESI 10: Seabird populations, Scoters in particular, nearshore response will be based around a detailed
were protected by reduction of the volume of oil on the
sea surface.
ESI 9: Sheltered tidal flats in the 3 rivers region of
Carmarthen Bay which could have been impacted had
an increased volume of oil stranded resulted in
remobilisation of oil before clean up
ESI 9: The key tourist beaches of Tenby and Saundersfoot
could be opened by Easter 1996. If the volume of oil
that had to be removed from these beaches had been 5-
11 times greater, it is unlikely that the storage and
transport capacity of the shoreline response would have
been able to cope adequately.
ESI 7: Following from the previous point on the speed of oil
removal if the volume of stranded oil is increased by 5-
11 fold, where shoreline oil was not removed rapidly
(eg. Skrinkle Have, SEEEC 1998) stranded oil
contaminated nearshore sediments.
ESI 6: Reduced volume of oil stranding on the cobble beaches
of Carmarthen Bay allowing a combination of natural
attenuation and in situ techniques to be used.
ESI 5: Carmarthen Bay nearshore waters, oil concentration in
mussels (key indicator species of nearshore oil
concentrations) were shown to be highest in those areas
of greatest shoreline oiling (Law et al. 1998) and
therefore nearshore waters would have benefited from
the reduced volume stranding on the shoreline.
ESI 3: Reduced oiling of amenity beaches
ESI 2: Reduced oiling of exposed wavecut platforms
ESI 1: Reduced oiling of exposed headlands and the offshore
sea surface
Detrimental effects observed by increasing the
volume of oil in the water column by 2-8 fold.
ESI 7 Nearshore biota in the sediment (esp.
Amphipods) was affected by dispersed oil (SEEEC,
1998).
ESIs relatively unaffected by the response operation.
ESI 10 Saltmarshes inside Milford Haven affected by the HFO
released inside the mouth of the Haven when the Sea
Empress was brought into port.
Commercial fisheries were not thought to be affected by
the increased volume of oil dispersing into the water
column (SEEEC 1998, Law et al 1998)
Sheltered rocky shores inside Milford Haven -as for
saltmarshes.
Potential increase in exposure offshore
sediments was not observed by the sediment sampling
operation
Tactical net environmental benefit analysis
The aim of a tactical net environmental benefit
analysis at the contingency planning stage or an actual
response, in for example an enclosed bay, is to
determine which nearshore/ shoreline resources should
be protected and which can be used as sacrificial areas.
Examples of the decisions to be made are nearshore use
of dispersants and deflection booming. These response
options can be difficult to execute and we have not been
able to identify in the literature documented cases where
tactical response options have resulted in a clear
quantified net environmental benefit, though the
benefits of protective booming of harbours and estuaries
may be obvious qualitatively. With respect to the
question of nearshore dispersant use versus allowing the
oil to strand, controlled field trials illustrate the potential
trade-offs to be made.
Quantification of the net environmental benefit of a
monitoring approach encompassing both oil and
ecological assessments, and including nearshore
subtidal areas as well as the shoreline. The best
quantified information to date for this level of NEBA
comes from the field experiments comparing effects of
untreated oil with effects of oil that had been completely
dispersed (i.e. in the initial stages of the experiment the
treatment had altered the mass balance to the extent that
all the oil was in the water column).
The Searsport (Maine) experiment (Page et al. 1983)
addressed the question of whether dispersant use in
nearshore water could have a benefit in reducing oiling
of sedimentary shores and concomitant biological
effects. Experimental plots were analysed chemically
and biologically for one year before treatment and one
year after. Hydrocarbons were measured in water,
intertidal sediments and infauna (bivalves), an infauna
community structure was assessed. Petroleum retention
by intertidal sediments and bivalves measured one week
postspill was less in areas exposed to dispersed oil than
in areas exposed to untreated oil. Subtidal sediments did
not show a significant increment in dispersant-treated
oil except for a short-term (1 week) increase at the
station nearest the dispersed oil release. There was no
evidence that exposure to dispersed oil caused adverse
effects on infaunal community structure. There was
clear evidence that exposure to untreated oil did
adversely affect community structure - some species
were reduced or eliminated, and there were blooms of
opportunistic polychaetes.
The BIOS experiment (Sergy and Blackall 1987)
considered an Arctic nearshore and intertidal area on
Baffin Island. The untreated oil was released in a
boomed test area and allowed to beach. The dispersed
oil cloud was created by discharging an
oil/dispersant/seawater mixture through a subtidal
diffuser nearshore. ‘Despite unusually severe conditions
of exposure to chemically dispersed oil, the impact on a
typical shallow-water benthic habitat was not of major
ecological consequence’. Sub-tidal organisms
accumulated dispersed oil rapidly but most of this was
degraded or depurated within one year. Untreated oil
residues remained on the beach after two years, with
some transport to adjacent subtidal sediments.
The TROPICS experiment (Ballou et al. 1989)
considered shallow nearshore waters with mangroves,
corals and seagrasses. Experimental plots were analysed
chemically and biologically before, during and after
treatment. Sediment data 3 days to 20 months post-spill
showed more oil in the untreated oiled mangrove area
than the dispersant treated. Untreated oil had severe
long-term effects on the intertidal component of the
study site (mangroves and associated fauna) and minor
effects on subtidal environments (limited to a slight
decline in coral abundance). Dispersant treatment
greatly reduced effects in the intertidal zone, but there
were relatively severe long-term effects on seagrass and
coral environments.
Two types of scenario in which significant long-term
damage to reef organisms has occurred as a result of
untreated oil (as evidenced mainly by the Panama
Refinery spill of 1986) are described by IPIECA (1992).
The first is when oil is stranded on reef flats during very
low tides, the potential response option is dispersant
treatment which could be used to limit the volume of oil
stranding. The second is when shore sediments absorb
oil and then slowly release it, constituting a chronic
source of pollution for reefs in the shallow nearshore
waters. In this instance, the response option is
dispersing oil into sensitive areas which results in an
increase in acute exposure but reduces the chronic
exposure, potentially allowing a faster overall
recolonisation and recovery time.
It is a recommendation of this paper that the SCAT-
type approach described in the previous section be
considered an integral part of tactical decision making.
Where time allows, this will involve pre-oiling surveys
of biota in the sensitive areas identified by the
sensitivity maps. This should be followed by a full
survey detailing the area of shoreline initially impacted
by surface oil and an on-site estimate of the degree to
which the response operation (deflection booming or
nearshore dispersant use) has changed the potential
stranding profile.
Operational net environmental benefit
Once oil is stranded, the natural cleaning timescale
may be prolonged. Selected case histories covering a
range of shore conditions are summarised by Baker
(1997). In summary, observed timescales range from a
few days (some case histories for very exposed rocky
shores) to more than 20 years (some case histories for
very sheltered marshes). Given that in extreme cases
thick deposits of oil may remain after abut 20 years, it is
reasonable to extrapolate that natural cleaning may take
several decades in some sheltered environments.
On the shoreline in the short term, the physical
removal of bulk oil, or ‘free’ oil (e.g. by washing) can
also decrease damage, by removing the threat to various
types of organism, by reducing the likelihood of oil
floating off and threatening other areas, and by averting
the formation of asphalt pavements. However, shore
clean-up can damage organisms such as mussels,
winkles and barnacles. They may be trampled during
and type of clean-up activity, or ‘cooked’ during hot
water/steam treatment.
The NEBA approach to shoreline cleanup developed
following the Exxon Valdez spill with respect to the
problem of subsurface oil, involved a NEBA comparing
the benefits of excavation and rock washing with the
benefits of natural cleanup augmented by less
aggressive methods (e.g. NOAA 1990). This study drew
upon SCAT data which showed, for example, that there
was evidence of substantial reduction of oil (up to 90%)
in the top 20 cm of shoreline during the winter of
1989/90, resulting from rough winter weather.
There are many reports of good recovery within one
or two years for the more exposed (mainly rocky)
shores, regardless of whether there was cleanup
treatment (Baker, 1997). With sheltered shores within
one or two years of oiling, there are more reports of
‘recovery started’ than reports of ‘recovered’. In
extreme cases, the recovery times may be much longer
for sheltered shores than for exposed shores. The
longest recovery times are not consistently related to
whether or not cleanup treatment was carried out.
Recovery times were long (eight or more years) for
three particularly aggressive cases of shore cleaning (the
Torrey Canyon, the Amoco Cadiz, and the Esso
Bernicia) and two extreme cases of oil retention (the
Florida and the Metula). Further information on long
term effects of aggressive clean up comes from studies
following the Exxon Valdez spill (Houghton et al. 1997).
Salt marshes oiled by the Metula and the Amoco
Cadiz spills provide an interesting comparison of
extreme oiling of relevance to NEBA. In the former
case, a marsh with untreated thick oil deposits
(commonly 5 or more cm) retained oil and showed little
recovery after 20+ years, in the latter case aggressive
cleanup of thickly oiled marsh resulted in a prolonged
recovery time of 20+ years. What would happen if it
were necessary to deal with a new case of very thick oil
deposits on a saltmarsh? Because neither natural
cleanup nor aggressive treatment provides the best
environmental benefit, it seems that the greatest benefit
would result from a moderate level of cleanup -
sufficient to remove most of the bulk oil, but gentle
enough to leave the surface of the shore intact and to
avoid churning oil into underlying sediments.
 An important point: most spills do not present
circumstances as extreme as these, and ‘typical’
recovery times for lightly to moderately oiled rocky
shores and saltmarshes are 1-5 years, with or without
cleanup (Sell et al. 1995). It is concluded from these
studies that for most spills, those that do not reach the
extremes of either oiling intensity or aggressive cleanup,
shore cleaning has little effect on longer-term recovery
rates of shore organisms. This is a very important
finding for shoreline NEBA, because it means that the
key questions about whether the shore should be
cleaned are:
Will it otherwise act as a reservoir of oil that will, at
some time or another, move elsewhere and damage
resources other than shore biota ?
Should the shore be classified as an extreme case
which does justify cleanup for ecological reasons ? The
At the strategic level where mechanical recovery and
dispersant options allow a change in the partitioning of
oil between the sea surface, nearshore and shoreline, sea
bed and water column the possibility of collecting the
type of information required for quantitative NEBA has
been demonstrated at the Sea Empress incident. This
paper suggests the methods and the level of information
that should be collected for strategic NEBA at future
spills.
At a tactical level the main quantitative information
available from the literature is from experimental trials.
These trials demonstrate that there are difficult trade-
offs in the near shore use of dispersants and potentially
also deflection booming. However, some level of
environmental effects are unavoidable once oil enters
nearshore/sheltered bays. Therefore, it is essential that
in future oil spills the success or otherwise of the
response operation be documented with SCAT-type
surveys to document the profile of initial oiling and the
degree to which nearshore use of dispersants and/or
deflection booming have changed the extent and
distribution of shoreline oiling.
The NEBA approach has been applied to the largest
range of spills at the operational level, although in most
cases after the spill event. Outside those spills that reach
NET OIL BUDGET
NET ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
QUALIFIED NET WENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Metula spill is the best documented case extreme where
a moderate level of cleanup would have resulted in a net
environmental benefit.
Will socio-economic issues dictate cleanup, even
though it is not necessary from an ecological point of
view? If so, decision making will be driven by
sociological and political measures of net environmental
benefit such as economic value and measures of
perception rather than the time for ecological recovery.
Conclusions
The calculation of the potential net oil budget allows a
method of quantifying the potential net environmental
impacts of different courses of action. Choosing an
appropriate response strategy on the basis of this
process is what is defined in this paper as quantified
NEBA.
the extremes of oiling intensity or aggressive cleanup
there appears to be little ecological benefit in shoreline
cleanup of the immediately affected shoreline.
Therefore, operational NEBA should be aimed at
answering 3 key questions: Firstly, is the oil likely to
remobilise and affect other resources. Secondly, is the
oiling intensity defined as extreme to justify clean up on
ecological grounds. Thirdly, are there socio-economic
issues which over-ride ecological issues ?
References
1. Baker, J.M., 1997. How clean is clean? Issue
paper presented at the 1997 International Oil Spill
Conference. American Petroleum Institute, Washington
D.C. 52 pp.
2. Baker, J.M., D.I. Little, and E.H. Owens, 1993.
A review of experimental shoreline oil spills.
Proceedings, 1993 Oil Spill Conference. American
Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C. pp. 395–399.
3. Ballou, T.G., S.C. Hess, R.E. Dodge, A.H. Knap
and T.D. Sleeter, 1989. Effects of untreated and
chemically dispersed oil on tropical marine
communities: a long-term field experiment.
Proceedings, 1989 Oil Spill Conference. American
Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C. pp. 447–454.
4. ESGOSS. Ecological Steering Group on the Oil
 Spill in Shetland. The environmental impact of the wreck
of the BRAER. The Scottish Office, Edinburgh 1994.
5. Galt J., Lehr W., Payton D. Fate and Transport of
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Science &
Technology. Vol 25, No. 2, 202–209, 1991.
6. Gundlach, E., T.W. Kana and P.D. Boehm, 1985.
Modelling spilled oil partitioning in nearshore and surf
zone areas. Proceedings, 1985 Oil Spill Conference.
American Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C. pp.
379–383.
7. Henry C.B. Dispersant application in support of
the High Island pipeline system spill. Report to USCG
Galveston, Texas, 29 January, 1998a.
8. Henry C.B. Dispersant application in support of
the M/V Red Seagull spill. Report to USCG Galveston,
Texas, 30 January, 1998b.
9. Houghton J.P., Gilmore R.H., Lees D.C.,
Driskell W.B., Lindstrom S.C., Mearns A. Prince
William Sound intertidal biota seven years later: Has it
recovered ? Proceedings, 1997 International Oil Spill
Conference. American Petroleum Institute, Washington
D.C. pp 679–686.
10. IMO/IPIECA, 1996. Sensitivity mapping for oil
spill response. International Petroleum Industry
Environmental Conservation Association, London. 24
pp.
11. IPIECA, 1991. A guide to contingency planning
for oil spills on water. International Petroleum Industry
Environmental Conservation Association, London. 19
pp.
12. IPIECA, 1992. Biological impacts of oil
pollution: coral reefs. IPIECA Report Series Volume 3.
International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association, London. 16 pp.
13. ITOPF Containment and recovery of oil at sea.
The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation
Ltd. Contract No. 23/91, 1991.
14. Johansson, S., U. Larsson and P Boehm, 1980.
The Tsesis oil spill: impact on the pelagic ecosystem.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 11, 284–293.
15. Lunel T., Swannell R., Rusin J., Bailey N.,
Halliwell C., Davies L., Sommerville M., Dobie A.,
Mitchel D., McDonagh M., & Lee K. Monitoring of the
effectiveness of response options during the Sea
Empress incident: A key component of the successful
counter-pollution response. Spill Science & Technology
Bulletin., 99–112, Vol. 2, (Published in 1996) 1995.
16. Lunel T., Rusin J., Bailey N., Halliwell C., &
Davies L. The Net Environmental Benefit of a
Successful Dispersant Operation at the Sea Empress
Incident. Proc. 1997 International Oil Spill Conference,
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 185–194, 1997.
17. Michel, J. and J. Dahlin, 1993. Guidelines for
developing digital environmental sensitivity index
atlases and databases. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.
18. NOAA, 1990. Excavation and rock washing
treatment technology: net environmental benefit
analysis. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Seattle. 199 pp.
19. Owens, E.H., 1991. Changes in shoreline oiling
conditions 1 1/2 years after the 1989 Prince William
Sound Spill.
20. Owens, E.H. and G.A. Sergy, 1994. Field guide
to the documentation and description of oiled
shorelines. Environment Canada. 66 pp.
21. Page, D.S., J.C. Foster, J.R. Hotham, E.
Pendergast, S. Hebert, L. Gonzalez, E.S. Gilfillan, S.A.
Hanson, R.P. Gerber and D. Vallas, 1983. Long-term
fate of dispersed and undispersed crude oil in two
nearshore test spills. Proceedings, 1983 Oil Spill
Conference. American Petroleum Institute, Washington
D.C. pp 465–471.
22. Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hampson, L.S.
Morse, S. Price-Garner and C.C. Jones, 1980. Anatomy
of an oil spill: long-term effects from the grounding of
the barge Florida off West Falmouth, Massachusetts.
Journal of Marine Research 38, 265–380.
23. Sell, D., L. Conway, T. Clark, G.B. Picken, J.M.
Baker, G.M. Dunnet, A.D. McIntyre and R.B. Clark,
1995. Scientific criteria to optimise oil spill cleanup.
Proceedings, 1995 International Oil Spill Conference.
American Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C. pp.
595–610.
24. Sergy, G.A. and P.J. Blackall, 1987. Design and
conclusions of the Baffin Island oil spill project. Arctic
Vol. 40, Supplement 1, 1–9.
25. SEEEC. 1998 The Environmental Impact of the
Sea Empress Oil Spill. The Stationery Office, London,
pp135.
26. Wolfe D., Hameedi M., Galt J., Watabayashi G.,
Short J., Clair C., Rice S., Michel J., Payne J., Braddock
J., Hanna S., & Dale D. Fate of the oil spilled from the
T/V Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium Abstracts. 1993.