Counter-historical study of alternative dispersant use in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response

Recent completion of oil fate modeling and a mass budget of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill allows for a counter-historical study using quantitative Comparative Risk Assessment (CRA) methodology. Novel application of subsea dispersant injection (SSDI) during the response reduced surfacing oil, volatile organic carbon emis-sions, and oil on shorelines. The effectiveness of that application, and potential alternatives had dispersant not been used or been used more aggressively, were evaluated by modifying and comparing the validated oil fate model under different SSDI strategies. A comparison of mass balance results, exposure metrics, and CRA scoring for Valued Ecological Components (VECs) shows the value of SSDI in achieving risk reduction and tradeoffs that were made. Actual SSDI applied during the DWH oil spill reduced exposures to varying degrees for different VECs. Exposures and relative risks across the ecosystem would have been substantially reduced with more effective SSDI.

Automated summary

This study examines the effectiveness of subsea dispersant injection (SSDI) during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and evaluates the potential alternatives if dispersants were not used or used more aggressively. The results show that the actual use of SSDI reduced risk to varying degrees, but more effective use of dispersants could have significantly reduced exposures and relative risks across the ecosystem.