manolis l: wreck assessment

Prepared by

RESOLVE SALVAGE & FIRE (AMERICAS)

1510 SE 17th Street

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316

For

Public Works and Government, CANADA

Cabot Place, Phase II, 2nd Floor Box 4600

St. John's, NL A1C 5T2 Job#: 160512 Date: 23/09/2016

Rev: 01 By: RSF

This document contains proprietary and confidential business information and is not to be Copied or distributed for any purpose other than the use intended in this proposal.

MANOLIS L: WRECK ASSESSMENT


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 1 of 64

REVISION LIST

Rev. Chapter / Revised page Revision Promoter Approved by Revision reason Revision

date

00 Initial issue AJ/MKB TS For Review 17/09/16 01 1.1/Page 9: Revised 0.5

quantity in Diesel Table to 5.0 Table 3-3/Page 41: Revised tank labels 3.2/Page 43: HFO 5.5 range 10-25cu.m. 3.2/Page 44: HFO 1.5 range 15-25cu.m Table 3-7/Page 46: Revised tank labels. HFO 5.5 quantity 25. Total Quantity 112.7 – 151cu.m. 3.2/Page 46: Range 115cu.m. – 150cu.m

MKB TS Table Revisions/Oil Quantity Revision

23/09/16

REFERENCES

1. F6813-150013/A, MANOLIS L ASSESSMENT RFP, Public Works and Government Services, 27 April 2016

2. 20160045-RPT-001 Rev 0, “MANOLIS L Technical Assessment”, FUGRO GeoSurveys, 12 September 2016

3. 8372/LOCC/CCG/R001, “MANOLIS L”, Further Considerations of Wreck Status, London Offshore Consultants, 13 February 2015


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 2 of 64

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................4

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................6

1.1. CASUALTY INFORMATION ...................................................................................................7 1.1.1. GROUNDING INCIDENT .............................................................................................. 11

1.2. SITE INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 12 1.3. RECENT OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 13 1.4. WRECK ASSESSMENT TEAM ............................................................................................... 14

1.4.1. PRODIVE MARINE SERVICES ....................................................................................... 14 1.4.2. MAERSK..................................................................................................................... 14 1.4.3. FUGRO ....................................................................................................................... 15

2. HULL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 17

2.1. MULTI-BEAM SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................................................... 17 2.2. ROV SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... 20

2.2.1. CURRENT CONDITION ................................................................................................ 21 2.2.2. LEAK/PATCH LOCATIONS ............................................................................................ 22 2.2.3. DAMAGE SURVEY ....................................................................................................... 28

2.3. HULL MARKING/MAPPING ................................................................................................ 33 2.4. HULL THICKNESS RESULTS .................................................................................................. 35

3. OIL ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................... 40

3.1. OIL LOCATION ................................................................................................................... 40 3.1.1. FUTURE LEAK POTENTIAL ........................................................................................... 42

3.2. OIL QUANTITIES ................................................................................................................ 42 3.3. OIL SAMPLE RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 47


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 3 of 64

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A) MULTIBEAM RESULTS

APPENDIX B) PROJECT VIDEO

APPENDIX C) PROJECT DRAWINGS

APPENDIX D) GHS OUTPUT

APPENDIX E) PETROFORMA RESULTS


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 4 of 64

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RESOLVE Salvage & Fire (AMERICAS), Inc. has completed its assessment of the wreck MANOLIS L and

surrounding wreck site under the terms and conditions set forth in Contract # F6813-150013/001/XAQ

for Public Works and Government Services Canada as overseen by the Canadian Coast Guard. The

purpose of this document is to provide the findings of the assessment and offshore operations, and is

thereby considered a detailed “final” report.

In order to carry out the assessment in its entirety, RESOLVE SALVAGE & FIRE (Americas) actively

managed the entire project, conceiving and executing the technical scope of work through on site

supervision of local sub-contractors carefully chosen by RESOLVE. A combination of specific vessel, ROV,

and mixed gas diving operations were utilized in this project to complete the following core objectives:

- Multibeam Survey

- Video Survey

- Hull Mapping

- Plate Thickness Survey

- Oil Assessment: locate/quantify/sample (type)

The statement of works was managed by RESOLVE with dive/ROV ops carried out by local St. John’s

contractor, ProDive Marine Services. The MAERSK CUTTER served as the operational platform and

FUGRO provided all underwater tracking and surveying equipment, as well as carried out the multibeam

survey. Onsite operations took place from August 15th to September 4th of 2016 in a period of very

favorable weather.

Results Summary

The MANOLIS L was found to be in capsized at N49° 40' 47.223750" W54° 31' 15.147008" with a 5-5.5

degree list to starboard, slight stern trim and a 34 degree heading. The vessel appears to be stable and

no evidence of the casualty breaking apart was visible although there is substantial damage to the bow

and stern bottom shell plating, due to the initial grounding incident. There appears to be no evidence of

hogging/sagging or torsional effects were seen on the global structure. Hull thickness gauging was


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 5 of 64

performed at 68 locations on the casualty and found the overall diminution of the hull to be

approximately 10%.

A total of 31 penetrations were made in the bottom shell and engine room area to locate oil within the

MANOLIS. Of these, 14 tanks/compartments were found to have at least traces of either diesel or heavy

fuel oil. The amount found is quantified to be in the range of 115 to 150 cu.m.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 6 of 64

1. INTRODUCTION

In April of 2016 Public Works and Government Services Canada submitted a Request for Proposal (RFP)

for a full wreck and oil assessment to be performed on the MANOLIS L casualty located off the coast of

Newfoundland. The requested statement of works included the following items:

Hull Assessment

- Identify areas of damage

- Identify/confirm reference points of current leak locations

- Identify hull frames/tanks/locations

- Install patching where leaks are identified during the assessment

- Hull thickness readings

- Depth soundings on the hull and immediate seabed

- 3D Multbeam survey

- Video Survey

Oil Assessment

- Verify tank locations and existence of oil

- Where possible estimate type and quantity of product

- Identify oil locations in relation to areas of damage

In July of 2016 RESOLVE Salvage and Fire (Americas) was contracted by Canada Public Works to carry out

and report on the above items. This document contains the culmination of the findings acquired during

the wreck assessment of the MANOLIS L throughout August and early September of 2016.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 7 of 64

1.1. CASUALTY INFORMATION

The MANOLIS L was a general cargo vessel owned by Dunnet Shipping and built in 1980 by German yard

VEB Schiffswerft. She was DNV classed and Liberian flagged. Her general particulars are as follows (See

Reference 1):

Official Number: 7381

Port of Registry: Monrovia, Liberia

Call Sign: ELCU8

Gross Tonnage: 5421

Net Tonnage: 3405

Deadweight: 7790ton

Length Overall: 121.85m

Beam: 17.61m

Depth: 9.91m

Summer Draft: 7.724m

Propulsion: 6 CYL MAN Diesel Engine, 5400HP, single fixed pitch propeller

Figure 1-1: MANOLIS L Profile

The superstructure and engine room are located towards the stern of the vessel. She has two cargo

holds which were serviced by three individual derrick cranes. The vessel was built with a double bottom

and contains wing tanks throughout the midbody (see Figure A-2). The height of the double bottom is

1.24m and the compartment is split longitudinally into 5 tanks, including a duct alley along centerline.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 8 of 64

Figure 1-2: MANOLIS L Midship Section

The double bottom tank arrangement consists of water ballast (typically outboard) as well as heavy fuel

oil (HFO, typically inboard) and one Diesel tank. The remainder of the hydrocarbon tanks are located

towards the stern of the vessel, mostly in the engine room area. There are a total of 25 tanks

designated as either HFO, Diesel or Lube Oil. Their capacities are listed below in cubic meters. The

complete details of each tank can be found in the Loading Plan (Reference 1).

Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO): 658.6 cu.m

Tank # Location Capacity (cu.m.)

1.0 Port Midbody Double Bottom 80.5

1.1 Stbd, Overflow Tank Engine Room Double Bottom 32.3

1.2 Port, Daily Service Engine Room 21.0

1.3 Stbd, Daily Service Engine Room 21.0

1.4 Port, Settling Tank Engine Room 28.4


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 9 of 64

1.5 Stbd, Settling Tank Engine Room 28.4


5.1 Stbd Midbody Double Bottom 72.7





Diesel Oil: 127.0 cu.m

Tank # Location Capacity (cu.m.)

0.1 Stbd, Midbody Double Bottom 80.0

0.2 Port, Overflow Tank Engine Room Double Bottom 32.3

0.3 Stbd, Day Tank II Deck 5.6

0.5 Stbd, Day Tank II Deck 5.0

0.7 Stbd, Storage Tank Engine Room 3.1

0.8 Port, Storage Tank Engine Room 1.0

Lube Oil: 82.2 cu.m.

Tank Location Capacity (cu.m.)

2.0 CL, Circulating Tank LO Engine Room Double Bottom 8.8

2.1 CL, Used Oil Engine Room Double Bottom 11.2

2.2 CL, Bilge Oil Engine Room 9.7

2.4, Lube Oil Engine Room 13.8

2.5, Lube Oil Engine Room 13.8

2.6, Cylinder Oil Engine Room 11.2

2.8 Port, Mud Tank Engine Room Double Bottom 13.7


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 10 of 64

Figure 1-3: Tank Plan (Courtesy of LOC Reference 3)


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 11 of 64

1.1.1. GROUNDING INCIDENT

The MANOLIS L ran aground on January 17th, 1985. At the time of the incident the MANOLIS had been

on charter to a Canadian paper company since 1981. She had departed Botwood, NL at 1715 on the 17th

en route to Chandler, Quebec with a 2990 ton load of newsprint (Reference 1).

Cargo Hold 1: 1911 rolls, 1477 tons

Cargo Hold 2: 1947 rolls, 1513 tons

Sailing Drafts: 6.2m fwd, 6.6m aft

Ballast Water: 1823 ton

Fresh Water: 200ton

Fuel Oil: 464.4ton

Diesel Oil: 60.9ton

Lube Oil: 25040liters

At 2202 the vessel ran hard around, heading 121° at full speed (14kts) onto Blowhard Rock at 49° 40.6’

N, 54° 31.3’ W. The engine room and Hold 2 began to take on water and the vessel listed to port

approximately 17 degrees. The crew was completely evacuated by 0200 on the 18th. By January 19th the

stern of the MANOLIS had completely submerged although the bow remained afloat. On January 20th

the remainder of the vessel submerged and sank to 40 fathoms of water at approximately 49° 40.73’ N,

54° 31.34’ W. At the time of the grounding it is estimated that the fuel capacity was 462tons and 60tons

of diesel.

Figure 1-4: MANOLIS L prior to sinking


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 12 of 64

1.2. SITE INFORMATION

The casualty is located in the south west corner of Notre Dame Bay, directly west of the Change Islands

and east-southeast of Bacalhao Island (see below). The immediate area is dotted with a number of

smaller islands and underwater shoals. The site is quite exposed to weather from the north east and

can experience severe weather conditions at all time of year but especially during the winter months,

when the site is nearly inaccessible. Conditions during the wreck assessment were extremely favorable

with only minor delays due to inclement.

Figure 1-5: Jobsite location and immediate topography


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 13 of 64

1.3. RECENT OPERATIONS

The following is a summary of the operations that have been performed onsite since the initial oil

discovery in spring of 2013:

April 2013: First reports of oil and oiled birds in Notre Dame Bay. Subsequent survey confirmed the

MANOLIS L as the source.

28 May 2013: Neoprene weighted seal successfully placed on the primary leak by Canadian Coast Guard

and local dive contractor

June 2013: Follow up survey on neoprene weighted seal. Primary leak is confirmed to be controlled.

However, a secondary leak is discovered approximately 30m forward on the hull.

July 2013: Cofferdam system successfully installed over secondary leak location and additional follow up

survey performed on hull.

October 2013: Follow up survey on cofferdam collection system and hull.

November/December 2013: Hunters report oiled birds on Fogo Island.

2 December 2013: Oil sheen reported at wreck location.

Mid December 2013: ROV survey confirmed the cofferdam had shifted.

January 2014: Newly designed cofferdam collection system successfully installed.

June/July 2014: 1300 liters of product is recovered from cofferdam. Thickness measurements are taken.

Full ROV survey performed. All patching efforts appear to be effective.

November 2014: Hull survey identifies another crack towards the stern of the hull which had been the

source of a small release.

December 2014: 1270 liters of product recovered and cofferdam replaced. Neoprene weighted seals

deployed over newly found leak.

May 2015: 595 liters of product recovered and cofferdam replaced. HD hull survey performed.

October 2015: 446 liters of product recovered and cofferdam replaced.

May 2016: 250 liters of product recovered. Small leak found towards stern of the vessel. Weighted seal

successfully deployed.

Total oil removed = 3860 liters (approximately)


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 14 of 64

1.4. WRECK ASSESSMENT TEAM

The operational team responsible for carrying out the wreck assessment was formed of a group of

contractors headed by RESOLVE Salvage and Fire. Canadian assets and personnel comprised the vast

majority of the workforce. An effort was made to maximize the amount of local content and limit the

importing of large amounts of workers or equipment. The following team members made this possible.

1.4.1. PRODIVE MARINE SERVICES

ProDive Marine Services has operated out of the St. John’s area for over 30 years. They provided the

ROV and dive equipment/personnel needed to perform all subsea operations. These included the

Seaeye Cougar XT as well as the full mixed gas dive spread.

Figure 1-6: Diver LARS Platform and Cougar XT being deployed

1.4.2. MAERSK

MAERSK provided the main floating asset for the project, the CUTTER. The 80mx22m Anchor Handler

provided an ideal work platform to carry out the operations. The main deck easily accommodated the

significant amount of ROV and dive equipment while the two traveling cranes aided in deploying the

work baskets and drilling equipment to the casualty. The vessel’s DP2 functionality allowed for it to

easily maneuver and change headings over the MANOLIS to make conditions most favorable for the

divers and crane ops.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 15 of 64

Figure 1-7: MAERSK CUTTER AHTS

1.4.3. FUGRO

Fugro is a world leader in survey and subsea services, and their team’s input was integral to accurately

mapping the MANOLIS. Fugro carried out the initial multibeam 3D survey in addition to providing and

cataloguing all subsea tracking data throughout the project. The Starfix.nav program made it possible to

track the movements of the CUTTER with reference to the dive and ROV platform. Beacons on the

divers and the ROV allowed their movements to be tracked as well which were invaluable during the

mapping and drilling portion of the operation. It should be noted that accuracies for the tracking

equipment are within 2m for positioning and .3m for depth (Reference 2).


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 16 of 64

Table 1-8: STARFIX Screenshot


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 17 of 64

2. HULL ASSESSMENT

The hull assessment portion of the operation directly followed the tasks set out in the scope of work of

the Request for Proposal (RFP). In the Technical Plan submitted by RSF the objectives were broken out

into the following task plan to be performed with the ROV.

SOW REF DESCRIPTION:

B.1.3.1 Conduct 3D multi-beam survey of wreck

B.1.2.2 Confirm historical reference points of leak locations. This task will be

expanded to include seeking out any new leaks from Vessel.

B.1.2.5 Install patching or sealing of leaks if found.

B.1.2.7

B.1.2.8

B.1.3.2

These three tasks 1) video survey 2) soundings for wreck and 3) seabed

depths will occur as a single task due to ROV's ability to capture this data

simultaneously

B.1.2.1

B.1.2.3

B.1.2.4

The tasks 1) identify and mark hull frames and 2) tank locations will be

accomplished concurrently. The damage assessment w/ references to these

marked locations will immediately follow

B.1.2.6 Hull cleaning for thickness measurement and drilling locations

B.1.2.6 Hull thickness measurements w/ Cygnus gauge

Table 2-1: Task Table

2.1. MULTI-BEAM SURVEY RESULTS

The first stage of the wreck assessment to be completed was the 3D MultiBeam survey. This was

performed by Furgro aboard the ANNE S. PIERCE prior to the MAERSK CUTTER arriving onsite. The

vessel was outfitted with an R2Sonic 2024 multi-beam echo sounder and a 200mX200m swath was

taken over the MANOLIS and the surrounding area. The R2 Sonic 2024 is a high resolution shallow water

multibeam echo sounder. The system has a maximum range of 500m and can achieve swath widths up

to 10x water depth using the maximum swath sector. The relatively dense data from a multibeam

echosounder is used to generate digital terrain models (DTM) from which contours, profiles, spot

depths, 3D images, and ‘fly-through’ animations, can be derived and used in AutoCAD drawings, GIS

products, and other third party applications.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 18 of 64

Figure 2-2: Survey Vessel ANNE S. PIERCE

The survey was performed on the 2nd of August. The data was then processed and submitted along with

the viewing program iView4D. The following are screen shots of the MANOLIS L in her current state

taken from the viewing software. The complete multibeam survey data is provided in the Appendices.

Figure 2-3: Full MultiBeam Survey Area


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 19 of 64

Figure 2-4: MultiBeam Screen Shot

The viewer also has the ability to pull sections across the wreck and seabed.

Figure 2-5: MANOLIS_Section Cut (Starboard side to the left in the screen)


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 20 of 64

Table 2-6: MANOLIS_Profile View (Bow to the left as shown)

This proved very useful in obtaining preliminary information regarding the heel and trim of the vessel.

By visually analyzing the multibeam data it could be confirmed that the casualty does have a slight list

with the starboard edge of the vessel being the high side. The profile section illustrates that there is

minimal trim in its current position with the bow appearing marginally higher than the stern.

2.2. ROV SURVEY

An ROV survey was performed to complete the remaining hull assessment objectives. These are

detailed in the following sections. Prior to carrying out the survey the Fugro software Starfix was used

to locate the casualty by using preliminary 'fixes' or data points on the hull. This served as the basis for

carrying out the wreck assessment.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 21 of 64

2.2.1. CURRENT CONDITION

Location: N49° 40' 47.223750" W54° 31' 15.147008" (As taken at midships on centerline of the casualty)

Heading: North-northeast at 34

Depth at midships(bottom shell):

Starboard (high side): 49.7m

Centerline: 50.5m

Port (low side): 51.2m

Trim: 0.7-1.0m change over 101m length = 0.3-0.5° by the stern (bow is the high side)

Bow: 50.8m

Stern: 51.7m

Heel: Using the depth values shown above = 5-5.5°

The MANOLIS is presently capsized and resting against an underwater rock formation (Blow Hard Rock)

on the south east edge (port) as shown in the multibeam survey. The casualty looks to be in a stable

condition, and given the gradual slope of the seabed it would appear there is a minimal risk of the hull

rolling over from its current state. The depth along the seabed in the vicinity of the wreck is

approximately 70m – 72m on the west side with a high point located towards the bow of the casualty.

The depths along the port (east) side range from 62m – 65m.

The vessel appears to be supported along the full length of the deck on the port side although portions

of the seabed were inaccessible by the ROV due to a lack of space between the rock face and the

sideshell. The starboard side of the wreck is supported primarily at the bow and stern. At the stern it is

held up by the superstructure which has crumpled into the seabed. Moving forward the deck edge on

the starboard side does not appear to make contact with the seabed again until approximately frame

150, where the crane has bent outboard and is protruding from beneath the deck. It can be reasonably

assumed that the midships crane foundation at frame 98 is providing additional support as well.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 22 of 64

2.2.2. LEAK/PATCH LOCATIONS

There are four known leak locations on the MANOLIS which were surveyed and located by the ROV. The

ROV was not able to sit directly on top of the sandbags for fear of entanglement. Therefore the fixes

taken have been adjusted based on the heading of the ROV and the location with respect to the given

patch. For the cofferdam three points were used to pinpoint the location. The leak areas are shown on

the diagram below. Note that the tank locations have been mirrored about centerline to reflect the

capsized hull.

Figure 2-7: Leak Locations

Primary Leak: The primary leak is situated directly on top of water ballast tank 4.6. The neoprene

weighted seal is approximately 8 to 8.5m forward of frame 72 which puts it between frame 84 and 85. It

is transversely located roughly 7m off centerline. During the survey no leakage was observed.

Figure 2-8: Primary Leak


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 23 of 64

Secondary and Tertiary Leak (Cofferdam): The cofferdam and surrounding weighted seals were also

found to be secure with no product observed to be leaking. The cofferdam itself was found to be

positioned just off centerline. With the extents of the unit overlapping the longitudinal bulkhead

between the duct keel and HFO tank 5.1. The forward edge of the cofferdam appears to be located

directly aft of the bulkhead at frame 126. There are approximately ten weighted seals in the direct

vicinity of the cofferdam. These have been sketched as accurately as possible to the drawing above.

Figure 2-9: Secondary/Tertiary Leak


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 24 of 64

2014 December Leak: In December 2014 another patch was placed on a leak towards the stern of the

MANOLIS. This patch is located just forward of frame 41 with the majority of it positioned on HFO tank

5.4. However, it does appear to overlap partially into tank 2.8. Transversely the weighted seals are

located close to the turn of the bilge, approximately 6m off centerline. The patch was found to be

secure and no leaks were discovered at this location.

Figure 2-10: 2014 December Leak

2016 May Leak: The most recent leak was discovered in the spring of 2016 and a neoprene weighted

seal was deployed over top of it. The patch is located on the starboard side of hull at approximately

frame 38-39. It is almost directly across from the 2014 December patch and sitting on tank 3.1.

Likewise, this patch is located along the turn of the bilge at the edge of the hull.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 25 of 64

Figure 2-11: Small Weep Location

Initial observations during the ROV survey found the leak to be secured however under further scrutiny

a small ‘weep’ was found at the northeast corner of the patch. A small drop of product would leak from

under the seal approximately once every 2-3 minutes. Divers were deployed to secure the patch further

with sand bags. Following the wreck assessment operations this patch was surveyed once more to

confirm the leak had been controlled.

Figure 2-12: Final Patching over tank 3.1


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 26 of 64

Patching Due to Wreck Assessment Operations: There are four locations on the hull where new patches

have been installed due to complications occurring during the recent wreck assessment operation. The

first of these is located on the starboard side of the engine room double bottom in the location of the

‘Engine Room 2’ drill point. The patch is a steel constructed box with a rubber gasket which has been

bolted to the hull. Underwater epoxy has also been placed around the edge.

Figure 2-13: Engine Room 2 Patch

The second patch is located directly adjacent to the 1.4 Diesel tank drill point. This breach was covered

with epoxy and a Miko magnet has been placed over it.

Figure 2-14: Tank 1.4 Patch


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 27 of 64

The third patch is located within the duct keel just aft of the cofferdam. This area was patched with

underwater epoxy and a neoprene wrapped sandbag was placed over top.

Figure 2-15: Forward Duct Keel Patch

The fourth patch is located at the forward end of tank 4.4 and directly outboard of the inboard

longitudinal bulkhead. Although no product was seen at this location it was also patched with

underwater epoxy and covered with a neoprene wrapped sandbag.

Figure 2-16: Tank 4.4 Patch


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 28 of 64

2.2.3. DAMAGE SURVEY

The MANOLIS has sustained a large amount of 'local' damage, particularly to the bow and stern bottom

shell and turn of the bilge. However, no ‘global’ damage was observed during the survey, meaning no

hogging, sagging, or twisting of the hull was visible. Evidence of these effects would also be present in

the side shell of the wreck where significant deflection of the hull would cause buckling in the plating

and longitudinal members.

There are numerous locations along the bottom shell and turn of the bilge where small cracks and tears

are evident. There are other areas where significant damage has occurred and quite large openings in

the hull are visible. These areas of note are tabulated below and designated by tank location.

Figure 2-17: Notable Areas of Damage

4.0 Water Ballast (Centerline): The bottom shell over the full length of 4.0 is compromised and open to

the sea in multiple locations.

Figure 2-18: Tank 4.0 Screenshots


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 29 of 64

4.1 Water Ballast (Starboard): The shell plating has sustained a significant amount of damage in way of

tanks 4.1 and 4.2. The turn of the bilge is crumpled and torn on both the starboard and port sides as can

be seen in the following pictures. The bottom plating has also sheared in multiple places along

longitudinal members.


4.2 Water Ballast (Port):



JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 30 of 64

4.3 Water Ballast (Starboard): Tank 4.3 has sustained heavy damage at the turn of the bilge at the

forward end of the tank.


4.4 Water Ballast (Port): The bilge turn is damaged in multiple locations on Tank 4.4 and is open to the

sea.



JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 31 of 64

5.4 HFO (Port): Tank 5.4 has tear along the bottom shell just before the turn of the bilge and directly

forward of the weighted seal. As well as a visible gash midway up the tank.

Figure 2-23: Tank 5.4 Screenshot

2.8 Mud (Port): Tank 2.8 has a large opening, approximately 1mX1m, in the bilge turn where it

appears the MANOLIS made direct contact with the ground.



JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 32 of 64

0.2 Diesel (Port): Tank 0.2 has a similar sized hole in its side. The internal structure can be

clearly seen in following picture.


2.1/2.2 Lube Oil Tanks (Aft Stern): The aft end of the engine room double bottom is open to the

sea and has serious damage on both sides.

Figure 2-26: Tank 2.1/2.2 Screenshot


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 33 of 64

2.3. HULL MARKING/MAPPING

The ROV was used to physically mark the hull of the MANOLIS with 200mm magnetic domes. These

markers were used to locate the tank boundaries and major structure. They were placed along the

bottom shell as well as the port and starboard sideshell. The markers are labeled with either the frame

number or with the frame number and intersecting longitudinal bulkhead. Markers at each frame were

recorded with the following notation:

Bottom Shell: Outbd Lbhd (port), Inbd Lbhd (port), Inbd Lbhd (starboard), Outbd Lbhd (starboard)

Side Shell: Fr# (1S/P) Fr#(2S/P) Fr#(3S/P)

With markers designated as 1S/P placed at a depth of approximately 51 to 52m, 2S/P placed at 55-56m,

and 3S/P at 59m.

A total of 64 markers were placed on the hull. 18 are located on the bottom shell, 22 are on the

starboard sideshell and 20 are on the port side shell. Two markers were not able to be placed at the

lower edge of the frame 98 and frame 72 due to the rock face impeding the ROVs access.

Figure 2-27: FR41/OUTBD LBHD Marker

The markers were placed utilizing a combination of the STARFIX navigation system as well as visually

following/counting the exposed structure beneath the bottom plating. The plate had warped in way of

major structural members which allowed the team to visually match the data that was provided from

the ROV tracking system.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 34 of 64

The following diagrams illustrate the approximate placement of the magnetic markers.

Figure 2-28: Bottom Shell Marker Locations

Figure 2-29: Port Side Marker Locations

Figure 2-30: Starboard Side Marker Locations


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 35 of 64

2.4. HULL THICKNESS RESULTS

Concerns have been raised since 2013 regarding the structural integrity of the MANOLIS and the

potential degradation of the steel plating. During the wreck assessment this was addressed by taking

hull thickness measurements in the vicinity of the 68 magnetic marker locations over the bottom and

side shell plating. The instrumentation used was the M5-ROV Cygnus Gauge, which is purpose built to

be outfitted for ROV use.

Figure 2-31: Cygnus Gauge

The apparatus is operated by firmly placing the sensor (red dot) on a piece of plating or other material.

The reading can then be viewed 'real time' on the software package as well as overlaid onto the ROV

video. Prior to use the Cougar was outfitted with a steel scrub brush. Each location was then cleaned to

remove all growth and rust. The Cygnus gauge was calibrated per the manufacturer's instructions and

the software was configured for the anticipated material to be measured. In the case of the MANOLIS

this was assumed to be mild steel.

The Cygnus gauge is advertised to measure within an accuracy of +/- 0.1mm or 0.1% of the material

thickness. Factors that can play a role in reducing this accuracy include growth or corrosion on the

interior side of the plating as well as operator error. It is ideal to place the sensor as squarely as possible

on the plating. If the sensor is resting at even a slight angle the resulting reading can be skewed. The

ROV operators piloting the Cougar had prior experience with the Cygnus gauge and took great care in

minimizing these errors by taking ample time at each location to achieve a proper interface.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 36 of 64

The thickness readings were then compared to the plating called out on the structural drawings of the

MANOLIS. Below is the midship section which gives the thickness information per location on the

side/bottom shell. Unfortunately, midships is the only available section cut on the structural drawing

that calls out the shell plating thickness. For this reason some assumptions were made regarding the

plating at the fore and aft regions on the hull.

Table 2-32: Midship Section Plate Thicknesses

MARKER

Cygnus

Readings

mm

Hull Thickness

from Drawing

mm

Depth

mm Change

1 FR155 3S 12.55 18 -59.5 5.45

2 FR155 2S 15.68 15 -55.2 0.68

3 FR155 1S 9.3 11 -51.8 1.7


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 37 of 64

4 FR155 CL 11.7 13 -51.1 1.3

5 FR155 1P 9.55 11 -51.8 1.45

6 FR155 2P 15.75 15 -55.8 0.75

7 FR155 3P 13.8 18 -61.4 4.2

8 FR145 3S 13.5 15 -58.59 1.5

9 FR145 2S 16.8 15 -54.56 1.8

10 FR145 1S 8.9 11 -51.13 2.1

11 FR145 1P 9.65 11 -51.73 1.35

12 FR145 2P 18.05 15 -54.56 3.05

13 FR145 3P 18.75 18 -59.42 0.75

14 FR126 3S 19.35 18 -57.97 1.35

15 FR126 2S 17.2 15 -56.11 2.2

16 FR126 1S 13.35 14 -50.22 0.65

17 FR126 OUTBD.S 11.15 11 -49.9 0.15

18 FR126 INBD.S 11.15 11 -50.5 0.15

19 FR126 INBD.P 12.65 13 -50.5 0.35

20 FR126 OUTBD.P 7.05 11 -50.8 3.95

21 FR126 1P 12.45 14 -52.7 1.55

22 FR126 2P 16.8 15 -55.5 1.8

23 FR126 3P 19.5 18 -59.8 1.5

24 FR98 3S 19.4 18 -57.7 1.4

25 FR98 2S 18.6 15 -55.15 3.6

26 FR98 1S 11.15 14 -51.8 2.85

27 FR98 OUTBD.S 11.35 11 -49.69 0.35

28 FR98 INBD.S 13.2 13 -50.16 0.2

29 FR98 INBD.P 12.05 13 -50.23 0.95

30 FR98 OUTBD.P 10.2 11 -50.53 0.8

31 FR98 1P 11.8 14 -53.98 2.2

32 FR98 2P 13 14 -55.25 1

33 FR98 3P N/A N/A N/A N/A

34 FR72 3S 15 15 -57.58 0

35 FR72 2S 12.3 15 -55.15 2.7

36 FR72 1S 14.45 14 -51.8 0.45

37 FR72 OUTBD.S 11.7 11 -49.88 0.7


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 38 of 64

38 FR72 INBD.S 11.25 11 -50.18 0.25

39 FR72 INBD.P 12.35 13 -51.1 0.65

40 FR72 OUTBD.P 11.05 11 -51.13 0.05

41 FR72 1P 14.4 14 -52.1 0.4

42 FR72 2P 12.9 14 -55.66 1.1

43 FR72 3P N/A N/A N/A N/A

44 FR42 3S 15.75 15 -58.52 0.75

45 FR42 2S 12.5 15 -54.94 2.5

46 FR42 1S 11.45 14 -52.44 2.55

47 FR41 OUTBD.S 10.75 11 -50.84 0.25

48 FR41 INBD.S 9.95 11 -50.22 1.05

49 FR41 INBD.P 10.5 11 -51.67 0.5

50 FR41 OUTBD.P 10.05 11 -51.77 0.95

51 FR42 1P 12.85 14 -51.84 1.15

52 FR42 2P 11.4 15 -54.16 3.6

53 FR42 3P 12.5 15 -58.31 2.5

54 FR27 3S 14.95 15 -59.52 0.05

55 FR27 2S 12.05 13 -56.6 0.95

56 FR27 1S 12.65 13 -52.64 0.35

57 FR27 CL 10.7 11 -50.5 0.3

58 FR27 1P 9.7 11 -52.1 1.3

59 FR27 2P 12.6 13 -55.91 0.4

60 FR27 3P 14.9 15 -59.83 0.1

61 FR14 3S 10.5 13 -58.72 2.5

62 FR14 2S 12.05 13 -56.43 0.95

63 FR14 1S 9.7 11 -50.81 1.3

64 FR14 1P 10.85 11 -51.77 0.15

65 FR14 2P 13.15 13 -56.13 0.15

66 FR14 3P 12.85 13 -59.45 0.15

67 Tank 1.0 11.1 11 -50.25 0.1

68 Tank 5.3 11.15 11 -49.91 0.15

69 Tank 5.0 12.25 11 -50.84 1.25

70 Tank 4.2 12.35 11 -50.52 1.35

Table 2-33: Cygnus Gauge Thickness Reading


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 39 of 64

Table 2-34: Cygnus Gauge Bottom Shell Locations

The average deviation between the as built plate thickness and the Cygnus measurements is 1.01mm, or

approximately 10% diminution. This is broken down further by specific plate thickness distribution.

11mm Plate: Average deviation = 0.77mm





Data points highlighted in red above have been omitted from the average figures as they have

differentials higher than or equal to 3.0mm. These outliers can be attributed to a number of factors:

- Inaccurate assumption based on lack of plate thickness data at other locations on the hull.

- Inaccuracies in depth readings from the ROV along the side of the ship which could also

contribute to assuming the incorrect thickness along the sideshell.

- Operator error

It can be concluded by the data retrieved that the shell plating has not been significantly degraded by

the corrosive effects of the sea. This could be attributed to the water temperature, salinity levels,

oxygen levels, or the continuing presence of anti-fouling paint. In general, much less growth was

observed on the bottom shell as compared to the sides of the casualty. The integrity of the hull/plating

was further confirmed by the ROV survey which found no signs of buckling or global structural failure

that would indicate the breakdown of internal girders or frames.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 40 of 64

3. OIL ASSESSMENT

The second portion of the wreck assessment entailed carrying out a survey of the oil still held inside the

MANOLIS. The objectives included:

- Locating the remaining hydrocarbons

- Estimating, where possible, the quantity of oil

- Extracting samples in order to identify the type of oil

The oil assessment was carried out primarily thru dive operations with assistance from the ROV where

needed.

3.1. OIL LOCATION

Invasive methods were used to determine the location of the oil in MANOLIS. Divers used a

hydraulically driven magnetic drill to tap into the shell plating of tanks and compartments. The drill

points were made at the high side of the tanks; forward and towards the starboard side of the tank. A

total of 31 penetrations were made over the bottom shell and engine room. The following diagrams

illustrate the drill point locations (See drawing 160512-160-4 in Appendix C for more details).

Figure 3-1: Bottom Shell Drill Locations

Figure 3-2: Sideshell Drill Locations (Starboard and Port Side Respectively


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 41 of 64

The results of the drilling yielded the following results which are noted as either containing bulk oil,

traces of oil, or no oil found.

Tank Name Oil Presence DO 0.1S Traces found, negligible volume DO 0.2P N/A DO 0.3S Bulk oil found DO 0.5S Bulk oil found HFO 1.0P Bulk oil found HFO 1.1S Traces found, negligible volume HFO 1.2P No oil found HFO 1.3S No oil found HFO 1.4P Traces found, negligible volume HFO 1.5S Bulk oil found HFO 5.0P No oil found HFO 5.1S No oil found HFO 5.2P No oil found HFO 5.3S No oil found HFO 5.4P Traces found, negligible volume HFO 5.5S Bulk oil found LO 2.0C No oil found LO 2.1C N/A open to the sea LO 2.2C N/A open to the sea LO 2.8P Traces found, negligible volume BWT 4.0C N/A open to the sea BWT 4.1S N/A open to the sea BWT 4.2P N/A open to the sea BWT 4.3S Traces found, negligible volume BWT 4.4P No oil found BWT 4.5S No oil found BWT 4.6P Traces found, negligible volume FWT 3.1S Traces found, negligible volume ENGRM Bulk oil found

Table 3-3: Oil Location Summary

The tanks with traces of oil are shown in the diagram below with the lighter hatching, while those with

bulk oil are shown as solid red.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 42 of 64

Figure 3-4: Oil Location Diagram

3.1.1. FUTURE LEAK POTENTIAL

The risk for future leaks from new locations on the MANOLIS is directly related to the structure integrity

of the hull, aside from outside influences such as icebergs. As there is further degradation in the steel,

new cracks and openings will form and allow the hydrocarbons out of containment. From the evidence

gathered during this assessment it does not appear that this is a risk for the immediate future, although

the recent history of the MANOLIS would suggest otherwise. The risk of any significant release of

pollution seems highly unlikely.

The segregation of oil by tank indicates that the interior bulkheads within the bottom shell are still in

good condition and the compartments between FR41 and FR72 appear to be intact. Likewise, the

forward engine room bulkhead does not appear to have been breached.

3.2. OIL QUANTITIES

The tanks listed above which were found to have product were then further surveyed to estimate the

quantity of oil remaining within. This was accomplished using three different methods depending on

the tank’s location in the casualty and the amount of product:

- Tanks and compartments along the bottom shell that were found to have oil in them were

quantified using a custom made probe that the divers inserted into the tank through drill holes.

The probe would detect the oil level which was simultaneously recorded topside. The oil level

and drill location could then be input into a 3D hydrostatic model of the MANOLIS. The model is

oriented with the appropriate trim and heel and the tanks are then filled to the measured level

using the drill location as a reference point.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 43 of 64

- The side shell tanks were quantified using a traditional salvage method whereby smaller holes

are drilled along the height of the tank to physically find the oil/water interface.

- Tanks with traces of oil found in them were quantified through calculation. A small layer of

product is assumed as 'clingage', and this small layer is multiplied over the surface area of the

top of the tank, i.e. bottom shell.

HFO Tank 1.0: This tank was probed at its initial drill point in the forward corner of the compartment.

The level recorded on the probe was 98cm. This was input into GHS which calculated the tank as being

75-80% full with a correlating volume of 60-65 cubic meters.

HFO Tank 5.5: Tank 5.5 was initially drilled at the forward end of the tank with no traces of product.

However, a second hole was also drilled into the aft area of the tank because of the proximity to the

weighted seal. This hole proved to have bulk oil which was probed and found to be 35cm thick.

Because of the conflicting and inexplicable results a third hole was then drilled approximately 8-9 frames

forward of the aft penetration. The mid location also proved to have bulk oil present. The probe was

deployed and a 55cm thick layer of oil was measured. Both reference points and oil levels were input

into GHS. The aft point yielded 20 cubic meters when the 35cm level was carried out over the full length

of the tank. The midpoint produced a similar but slightly larger volume of 23cu.m. This can be

attributed to the transverse locations of the drill points. The midpoint was drilled further outboard at a

higher point where the oil level would be at its thickest.

There are two possibilities for the lack of oil present at the forward end of 5.5. Either blockage has

occurred in the rat holes of the transverse frames, preventing oil from traveling forward, or the tank top

has collapsed somewhere between the mid and forward location. Due to this anomaly the quantity of

the product in tank 5.5 is estimated to be in a range of 10-25 cubic meters.

Engine Room: The engine room space was drilled in two different locations and found to have product

emitting from both points. When ENGRM2 was drilled a mixture of hydrocarbons was found. It

appeared to contain hydraulic fluid, diesel, and lube. At this location the drill bit hit a frame and the

area was subsequently patched with the aforementioned steel box.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 44 of 64

When ENGRM 1 was drilled an air pocket was struck. The air was slowly released by the ROV

intermittently opening the ball valve on the tap location. Once the air had been purged from the area

the probe was inserted and 102mm of product was measured. This correlated to a volume of

approximately 15cu.m. when input into the GHS model.

The following screenshots are from the hydrostatic software, GHS, which was used for this project (GHS

Output can be found in Appendix D).

Figure 3-5: GHS Screenshots

HFO Tank 1.5: Tank 1.5 is located on the starboard sideshell of the engine room. Initially product was

found when it was first drilled so one additional 5/8" hole was made approximately 1/3 of the way from

the inverted tank top. Oil was discovered at this point as well and the opening was capped by screwing

a 5/8" bolt into the hole. No further holes were made, however, as it was decided to halt additional

drilling operations on the sideshell to reduce the risk of release and avoid creating future leak points

that could not be dealt with by the CCG. For the purposes of estimating the quantity of this tank it is

known to be at least 1/3 filled and possibly more. The total capacity of the tank is 28 cubic meters so

the volume is estimated to be between 15 and 25 cubes.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 45 of 64

Figure 3-6: Tank 1.5 Drilling Ops and installed 5/8" bolt

DO Tanks 0.3 and 0.5: Both tanks were drilled and found to have product. However, because of the size

of the tanks it was decided not to drill additional holes. Both tanks are assumed full and estimated to

have 5cu.m. each.

Tanks w/ Trace Amounts of Product (Negligible Volume): Tanks were deemed to have ‘trace amounts’ of

oil, or negligible volume, based on the results of the tapping and sampling procedure. In these tanks

there was oil visible on the drill bitt, ball valve, divers’ gloves, etc during the initial drilling process.

Tanks were further tested for product by inserting a 1.15m threaded rod thru the interface. In these

cases the threaded rod would be retracted with traces of oil on the rod but not over the entire length.

These tanks were also probed and the sensors did not find a significant layer of oil present. The sensors

would read oil once the probe had been retracted into the hottap/ball valve assembly. These results led

to the conclusion that there was indeed oil present in the tanks, however, only small pockets or

‘clingage’ along the bottom shell.

To estimate the volume of these compartments a 4mm layer of oil was used to calculate the remaining

product in the tanks where trace amounts were discovered. The below is the surface area of the

bottom shell for each tank with the 4mm layer applied. In GHS this has been input as 1.0%.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 46 of 64

WBT 4.3: 82sq.m. = approximately 0.5cu.m

WBT 4.6: 85sq.m. = approximately 0.5cu.m

HFO 5.4: 91sq.m. = approximately 0.5cu.m

DO 0.1: 66sq.m. = approximately 0.5cu.m

LO 2.8: 15sq.m. = approximately 0.1cu.m

FW 3.1: 11sq.m. = approximately 0.1cu.m

HFO 1.1: 32sq.m. = approximately 0.25cu.m

HFO 1.4: approximately 0.25cu.m

The results are summarized in the following spreadsheet.

Tank Total Tank Capacity

Cu.M.

Estimated amount: Low to High Range Notes

DO 0.1S 80 0.5 1 2" Hole drilled, traces found, sample taken, probed w/ negligible results DO 0.3S 5.6 5 5 2" Hole drilled, oil found, assumed full due to small tank size DO 0.5S 5 5 5 2" Hole drilled, oil found, assumed full due to small tank size HFO 1.0P 80.5 60 65 98cm sounding at forward high (inboard) corner of the tank. 75-80% filled HFO 1.1S 32.3 0.25 0.5 2" Hole drilled, traces found, sample taken, probed w/ negligible results HFO 1.4P 28.4 0.25 0.5 Traces found HFO 1.5S 28.4 15 25 2" Hole drilled, oil found, 5/8" hole drilled 1.5m lower. HFO 5.4P 96.8 0.5 1 5.4fwd, no oil, 5.4aft traces found, sample taken HFO 5.5S 96.8 10 25 5.5fwd no oil, 5.5aft 35cm sounding, 5.5mid 55cm sounding LO 2.8P 13.7 0.1 0.5 2" Hole drilled, traces found BWT 4.3S 91.1 0.5 1 Traces found BWT 4.6P 97.3 0.5 1 4.6fwd drilled, no oil, 4.6aft drilled, traces found FWT 3.1S 7.8 0.1 0.5 Traces found ENGRM 1 15 20 Eng. Room 2 and 1 drilled, 102cm found, air pocket also present

Total 112.7 151

Table 3-7: Oil Quantity Estimation

Based on the oil assessment performed the total quantity of hydrocarbons found can be estimated to

fall within the range of 115 to 150cu.m.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 47 of 64

Each drilling location was capped following the oil assessment with a yellow dome similar to the red

ones used for marking the hull.

Table 3-8: HFO 5.2 Marker

3.3. OIL SAMPLE RESULTS

Samples taken from the Manolis L (each approximately 200-300mL in volume) were stored onboard the

Maersk Cutter at 4 Degrees Centigrade until transfer to Petroforma Laboratories for further analysis in

St. Johns, Newfoundland. Of the tanks sampled, those where only water was found were kept as

reference to other tanks until the end of the technical assessment. At the completion of onsite

operations, with concurrence from the Canadian Coast Guard representative, those samples which only

contained water were disposed of.

A total of 11 representative samples were provided to Petroforma laboratories for further analysis.

Initially, Density (API & ATSM 4052) and Flash Point testing (ASTM D93) were envisioned to

appropriately type the hydrocarbon samples. However, some challenges arose from water entrainment,

suitable sample volume and hydrocarbon settling which called for the addition of one Saturates

Aromatics Resins Asphaltenes (SARA) analysis and 5 Carbon 30+ Analysis to ensure samples were

appropriately typed. The results of this testing are listed in the below table and further analysis may be

found in the full Petroforma Report in Appendix E.


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 48 of 64

Table 3-9: Petroforma Laboratory Analysis Results


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

00 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Page 49 of 64

Generally, the tanks with hydrocarbons present can be confirmed as diesel or #6 fuel oil respectively.

N/A in the table above indicates that a particular test was not conducted for a sample. There was one

anomaly of note which occurred in the sample from Tank HFO 5.4 P AFT. Once delivered to the lab for

additional testing and left to settle at 15 degrees C, the sample settled into 3 distinct layers composed of

light hydrocarbons on top, with saltwater below and a layer of heavy hydrocarbons resting on the

bottom of the sample beaker. After 24 hours of settling this layering persisted which is why a SARA

analysis was performed on this sample of oil confirming a mixture of asphaltenes and other heavy

hydrocarbons. Important to note for this particular sample, is that when the sample was collected the

ambient bottom temperature was recorded at 1 degree C. The sample was collected from the very top

of the tank volume as single sample and the hydrocarbons collected were observed as one continuous

sample. The segregation of specific gravity only occurred upon an increase in sample temperature to 15

degrees C. This behavior was not observed in any other samples. As such, this does not represent a

statistically significant observation for the bulk oil observations. However, future removal operations

should take this observed behavior under consideration when designing on scene hydrocarbon/oil water

separation techniques and apparatuses in the unlikely event it occurs on a larger scale with bulk oil at

15C.

Section 3-10: Petroforma Laboratory Analysis Results – Stratification of heavy and light hydrocarbons

with water as the intermediary observed in sample


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

01 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Appendix A

Appendix A) MULTIBEAM SURVEY RESULTS


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

01 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Appendix A


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

01 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Appendix B

Appendix B) PROJECT VIDEO


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

01 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Appendix C

Appendix C) PROJECT DRAWINGS

1. Sheet 1: Proposed Sample Locations


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

01 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Appendix D

2. Sheet 2: Final Sample Locations


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

01 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Appendix D

Appendix D) GHS OUTPUT


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

01 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Appendix D


JOB #: 160512

Revision:

01 Date: 23 SEP 2016

Appendix E

Appendix E) PETROFORMA RESULTS

manolis l: wreck assessment

Documents