The Observer, March 2005

return to this edition

Council opposes burning off oil spills in most cases

It sounds like the most logical way to clean up spilled oil: Set it on fire and let it burn till it’s gone.

Not so, according to a position adopted by the citizens’ council in December. The position paper puts the council on record as opposing the tactic – called in-situ burning – in most cases. Instead, the council favors mechanical recovery with booms and skimmers as the primary clean-up strategy.

The logic: Usually, it’s possible to burn spilled oil only if it’s first contained by booming. In that case, there’s no reason not to skim it up, which removes it from the environment. Burning, by contrast, merely converts it from one form to another and leaves it in the environment.

“Oil can be removed by mechanical means under any weather conditions compatible with booming operations,” the council position states. “Burning should never hinder an on-going mechanical recovery operation.”

The position paper did note that some circumstances may arise in which burning makes sense. Examples include spills in pack ice, spills at extremely low temperatures, and spills in extremely remote locations.

The pros and cons of the tactic were summarized as follows:

Pros

•Removes 95 percent of the oil with minimal equipment and manpower.

•Reduces waste storage and disposal requirements.

•If slick is contained by natural barriers and shorelines, burning may be quicker than mobilizing and conducting mechanical recovery operations with booms and skimmers.

•Removes most of the more toxic components of crude oil.

•Reduces chronic impact on some shoreline habitats.

•Capable of removing crude oil in broken ice conditions.

Cons

•Not removing oil from environment; trading one form of pollution for another.

•Smoke plume is unpleasant and contains fine particulate matter and other toxic compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known to cause cancer. These can be carried into the air and transported by wind, or they can fall into the water, sink, and remain a long-term threat to bottom-dwelling organisms.

•If slick is not contained by natural barriers and shorelines, booming is required before burning. In that case, skimming would be preferable to burning, because skimming removes the oil from the environment.

•Under some conditions, spilled oil may not be burnable.

•Can be dangerous to clean-up personnel.