Overview
Exercise Name: Arctic Shield 2014 – Oil-in-Ice
Exercise Date: Aug 5-31 2014
Sponsors: USCG Research and Development Center
Type of Exercise: Technology demonstration in Arctic environment
Funding Source: USCG
Focus: Use oil stimulants (oranges and dye) to collect data about movement near an ice
edge And assess technology’s capabilities to do this.
Situation______________________________________________________________
Prior oil spill response efforts in the Arctic region have shown response is hampered by
many factors; the most obvious is ice and visibility of oil in and around ice. Researchers
also have a limited amount of information about the oceanographic processes that may
affect oil movement near the ice edge. Data is needed to determine the conditions under
which oil will submerge under the ice and the sensors that could be used to track the oil.
Objectives______________________________________________________________
1.) Collect data for modelers that track the position of the oranges and dye on an
hourly basis.
2.) Identify technologies that can be used to track oil during a spill every 4-6 hours.
3.) Collect sufficient environmental data to support the above collection objectives.
4.) Evaluate each piece of equipment individually to assess its effectiveness in tracking the oil surrogates.
5.) Evaluate launch/recovery issues, data collection and data analysis processes/procedures.
6.) Develop tactics, techniques and procedures for each technology individually and
simultaneously.
Make recommendations for future Arctic tests or spill response
Participating Organizations_______________________________________________
All Technologies
Planning Team__________________________________________________________
LCDR W. Woityra
Operations Officer
CGC HEALY
206-217-6300
Mr. Rich Hansen
RDC Chief Scientist
USCG RDC
860-271-2688
Kurt Hansen
Project Manager
USCG RDC
860-271-2865
Operations____________________________________________________
16 Aug 2014 – Ship arrives at ice edge and performed conductivity, temperature and
depth (CTD) cast. Deploy Wave Rider Buoy.
17 Aug 2014 – A location was found away from the large ocean swells but with enough
fetch that choppy waves were being created on the ice edge. A location for the tracking
demonstration was chosen about ½ mile off the bow of the Healy. Two of the buoys were
deployed on ice floes using the ASB. Before any oranges or dye could be place, a SUAS
was launched but could not hold position due to the high winds at 3-400 feet of over 25
knots so it was bought down. The buoys were retrieved and the experiment canceled that
day. Data was recorded by the AUV. The ship had drifted at least 1 mile from the starting
position but les than that with respect to the buoys.
18 Aug 2014 – CCGC Healy moved further into the ice to conduct second attempt and a
location again about ½ mile from CGC Healy was identified. The aerostat was launched
although with limited visibility. The ASB was launched and deployed 4 oil-tracking
buoys, a SWIFT buoy, 3 buckets of dye solution and 5 cases of oranges. The dye was
partially mixed with warm fresh water and then dispersed through a fire hose using an
educator such as done with firefighting foam. The resulting mixture was less than 3% dye
which still may be too high.
The ASB could see the ship but the aerostat could not be seen through the fog even when
lowered to about 100 feet or with the EO/IR package at the same level as ALOFTCON.
Data was collected by the AUV. An attempt was made after dinner to launch an UAS but
the fog rolled in. The CGC Healy drifted several miles downwind and a little faster than
the buoys were noting. Contact was maintained with the 4 buoys and the SWIFT buoy.
19 Aug 2014 – The CGC Healy was reposition to come within about 1 mile of the
iSPHERES reported position and the aerostat and UAS launched. It appears that CGC
Healy drifted quickly out of the range that either system had sufficient resolution to find
buoys or oranges. The ship again repositioned and lookouts spotted two of the buoys.
The ASB was directed to the area and found a third buoy and the SWIFT buoy and they
were recovered. The position of the last buoy was apart from the others and a search by
the CGC Healy was successful when directed to the latest position. The ASB was
directed and successfully recovered the last buoy. The AUV was deployed twice during
this day to record underwater ice ridge data.
Additional oranges and dye were deployed in the afternoon and the aerostat and UAS
recorded the movement for a brief period of time lasting about 1 hour. A Thermal Oscar
was deployed for about 1 hour for the aerostat and UAS to check their IR systems.
Lessons Learned
1. The creation of the dye is crucial. A NOAA representative who had used dye the week
before provide some direction but it still appears to sink too quickly, less than 1 hour.
This is most likely due to the mixing concentration plus the circulation created by the
wind. A better mixing method is needed for next time.
2. The oil-tracking buoys and SWIFT worked and collected good data. Both would be
useful during an actual event if there are difficulties in keeping the oil in sight.
3. As expected, weather will play a major role for any surveillance. Many times, it is
clear but the winds are high. If the winds are low the fog has a better chance of settling
Page 2 of 4
in. While the use of aerostat and UAS should be safer because a human pilot is not put at
risk, they may not provide a full picture. More robust systems are needed so that during
windy weather, surveillance can still be performed. Even when windy, the ice reduces the
waves so mitigation may still be able to be performed.
3. Although not new, the drift of a vessel can result in the loss of visibility of the oil. If
this had been an actual spill, an attempt would have been made to keep the vessel in the
same relative position to the oil. This may require multiple UAS and/or aerostat systems
and teams to be able to track through the night. While the oil-tracking buoys can get
back to the same location, the time spent may be time-consuming.
4. The oranges stayed very bright but it appears that many more are needed if the camera
systems using in this demonstration are used. Although it is anticipated that a large oil
spill should be easy to spot it is not clear how patchy it may get. The dye was not able to
be seen from the bridge of the CGC Healy even though the ship was about ¾ mile away
and the bridge is about 72 feet from the surface. The aerostat at 500 feet easily picked up
the dye on the visual camera and the thermal OSCAR on the IR.
5) Data was passed to ERMA, but a rigorous analysis is needed to determine usefulness
for all of the sensors. As was noted for AS13, to facilitate data collection a programmer
would be mandatory to get the data in quickly in order to get it out.
Conclusion____________________________________________________
1. Tracking oil in the Arctic will be difficult as expected. But it may be even more
difficult to do the research needed to determine how it will move. While many
other investigators are recording turbulence and mixing at the ice edge, it is
dangerous to launch small boats in swells and choppy waves in order to place
buoys and/or stimulants into the water. Some of these may be able to be thrown
from a deck off the water and survive, but their placement may not be exact and
dye may be difficult at this height. Other have used a sophisticated spraying
system but a large ship like the CGC Healy will most likely disturb the ice
formation and could disrupt the natural processes.
2. More robust surveillance systems will be needed but that also means larger
vessels that are specifically manned for the surveillance system. Smaller aerostats
and SUAS could be deployed on skimming vessels, under many conditions their
usefulness may be limited.
3. Deploying multiple systems on a single vessel as done here is not recommended.
Competing objectives, especially the needs for any small boats, may require the
CGC Healy to need more crew.
Recommended Future Actions___________________________________
1. Identify better stimulants for subsurface analysis. Follow up on project by Bureau
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)
Page 3 of 4
2. Identify more robust systems that can be deployed in harsher weather. IGN
indicated that larger aerostats are available and a kite system is available for
strong winds that should be tested in less harsh weather first.
3. Conduct multi-vessel demonstrations combined with response to determine how
much of CGC Healy’ capability will result in a successful outcome. Use CGC
Healy as a “motel” ship to support extra crew on a WLB while also doing
surveillance and conducting ice management ops around the WLB. Consider
working with private companies like Alaska Clean Seas
4. Check mixture process with ACS for the use of dye to find out their strategy.
Page 4 of 4