Assessing progress and benefits of oil spill response technology development since Exxon Valdez

2005 International Oil Spill Conference, IOSC 2005

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 9658-9665

  Etkin, Dagmar Schmidt ^a   Tebeau, Peter ^b  

^a Environmental Research Consulting   (United States)

^b Potomac Management Group   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRUDE PETROLEUM; DISPERSIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; MARINE POLLUTION; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

HIND-CAST TECHNIQUE; OIL SPILL REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY; SPILL REMOVAL; SPILL SCENARIOS;

OIL SPILLS;

EID: 33646032697     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Allen, A.A., and R.J. Ferek. 1993. Advantages and disadvantages of burning spilled oil. Proc. 1993 International Oil Spill Conference: 765 - 772.
2. Etkin, D.S. 1999. Estimating cleanup costs for oil spills. Proc. 1999 International Oil Spill Conference: 35 - 39.
3. rd Arctic & Marine Oilspill Prog. Tech. Sem.: 161-174.
4. Etkin, D.S. D. French-McCay, J. Jennings, N. Whittier, S. Subbayya, W. Saunders, C. Dalton. 2003. Financial implications of hypothetical San Francisco Bay oil spill scenarios: response, socioeconomic, and natural resource damage costs. Proc. 2003 International Oil Spill Conference: (current volume)
5. Etkin, D.S., D.French-McCay, N. Whittier, S. Subbayya, and J. Jennings. 2002. Modeling of response, socioeconomic, and natural resource damage costs for hypothetical oil spill scenarios in San Francisco Bay. Proc. 25th Arctic & Marine Oilspill Prog. Tech. Sem.: 1,075-1,102.
6. French-McCay, D., N.Whittier, S. Subbayya, J. Jennings, and D.S. Etkin. 2002. Modeling fates and impacts for bioeconomic analysis of hypothetical oil spill scenarios in San Francisco Bay. Proc. 25th Arctic & Marine Oilspill Program Tech. Sem.: 1,051-1,074.
7. Gautier, P., K. Satra, J.Tarpley, H. Henderson, H. Parker-Hall, and E. Ueber. 2001. Response benefit analysis: A new method for measuring response effectiveness. Proc. 2001 International Oil Spill Conference: 497-503.
8. Kucklick, J.H., and D. Aurand. 1997. Historical dispersant and in-situ burning opportunities in the United States. Proc. 1997 International Oil Spill Conference: 805 -810.
9. Lewis, A. and D. Aurand. 1997. Putting Dispersants to Work: Overcoming Obstacles. 1997 International Oil Spill Conference Issue Paper. American Petroleum Institute Technical Report IOSC-004, 78 pp.
10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998. Spill Tools: Dispersant Mission Planner.NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, Washington, USA.
11. Pond, R.G., D.V. Aurand, and J.A. Kraly. 2000. Ecological Risk Assessment Principles Applied to Oil Spill Response Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area. California Office Spill Prevention and Response, Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA, 200 pp.
12. US Coast Guard. 1999. Response Plan Equipment Caps Review. Draft report. August 1999. US Coast Guard Commandant, Office of Response, Washington, DC, USA.
13. US Coast Guard. 2001. Risk Assessment for the Coast Guard's Oil Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (OSPPR) Program: Phase I: Concept Development, Risk Characterization, and Issue Identification. USCG Office of Response, Washington, DC, USA. DTCG23-00-MM3A01. 239 pp.