Next Article in Journal
Free Surface Reconstruction for Phase Accurate Irregular Wave Generation
Next Article in Special Issue
A Modeling Study on the Oil Spill of M/V Marathassa in Vancouver Harbour
Previous Article in Journal
Modeling the Transport and Fate of Sediments Released from Marine Construction Projects in the Coastal Waters of British Columbia, Canada
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Implications of Oil Exploration off the Gulf Coast of Florida
Article Menu
Issue 3 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6(3), 104; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse6030104

Simulation of the 2003 Foss Barge - Point Wells Oil Spill: A Comparison between BLOSOM and GNOME Oil Spill Models

1
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Albany, OR 97321, USA
2
Theiss Research, San Diego, CA 92037, USA
3
AECOM, South Park, PA 15129, USA
4
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, USA
5
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 26 July 2018 / Revised: 27 August 2018 / Accepted: 29 August 2018 / Published: 11 September 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Marine Oil Spills 2018)
Full-Text   |   PDF [25607 KB, uploaded 11 September 2018]   |  

Abstract

The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy Technology Laboratory’s (NETL’s) Blowout and Spill Occurrence Model (BLOSOM), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME) are compared. Increasingly complex simulations are used to assess similarities and differences between the two models’ components. The simulations presented here are forced by ocean currents from a Finite Volume Community Ocean Model (FVCOM) implementation that has excellent skill in representing tidal motion, and with observed wind data that compensates for a coarse vertical ocean model resolution. The comprehensive comparison between GNOME and BLOSOM presented here, should aid modelers in interpreting their results. Beyond many similarities, aspects where both models are distinct are highlighted. Some suggestions for improvement are included, e.g., the inclusion of temporal interpolation of the forcing fields (BLOSOM) or the inclusion of a deflection angle option when parameterizing wind-driven processes (GNOME). Overall, GNOME and BLOSOM perform similarly, and are found to be complementary oil spill models. This paper also sheds light on what drove the historical Point Wells spill, and serves the additional purpose of being a learning resource for those interested in oil spill modeling. The increasingly complex approach used for the comparison is also used, in parallel, to illustrate the approach an oil spill modeler would typically follow when trying to hindcast or forecast an oil spill, including detailed technical information on basic aspects, like choosing a computational time step. We discuss our successful hindcast of the 2003 Point Wells oil spill that, to our knowledge, had remained unexplained. The oil spill models’ solutions are compared to the historical Point Wells’ oil trajectory, in time and space, as determined from overflight information. Our hindcast broadly replicates the correct locations at the correct times, using accurate tide and wind forcing. While the choice of wind coefficient we use is unconventional, a simplified analytic model supported by observations, suggests that it is justified under this study’s circumstances. We highlight some of the key oceanographic findings as they may relate to other oil spills, and to the regional oceanography of the Salish Sea, including recommendations for future studies. View Full-Text
Keywords: oil spill model; ocean trajectory; GNOME; BLOSOM; Salish Sea; Point Wells; Foss Barge; hindcast; windage; model comparison oil spill model; ocean trajectory; GNOME; BLOSOM; Salish Sea; Point Wells; Foss Barge; hindcast; windage; model comparison
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Duran, R.; Romeo, L.; Whiting, J.; Vielma, J.; Rose, K.; Bunn, A.; Bauer, J. Simulation of the 2003 Foss Barge - Point Wells Oil Spill: A Comparison between BLOSOM and GNOME Oil Spill Models. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 104.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. EISSN 2077-1312 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top