This is where I think we need more research, because these things touch on the ultimate question, which is "What is the fate of oil in the ocean?" Most of the oil that we spill will remain in the ocean, and we have little hints of information about its fate. And the fate looks like that it becomes part of the food chain. So I think we need to understand all of these points when we are trying to decide whether or not to use chemical dispersion, and so on : (1) that there is already oil in the water, (2) that we may be accelerating a process that is natural and is going to go on anyway whether we do anything or not, and (3) we really ought to monitor and observe carefully what is happening during these events.
Davies： Dr. Lunel, on the chemical dispersant, you were very closely monitoring the actual planes that were dispersing this chemical. How close could you get safely?
Lunel： In terms of health and safely, the important thing was to have face masks on, to prevent us from actually breathing in any of the small particles that might be in a respiratable fraction. And then it's purely a case of how much you trust the pilots. In the case of Air Atlantique, we have worked with them regularly in field trials. That raises an additional point. If you're going to have a dispersion operation and have it successfully mounted, you actually have to practice everything for real. You have to actually go out and treat oil. I think that is one problem that the United States might have in going to increasing use of dispersants. And that is, unless you can actually exercise on a real oil spill, you won't get that relationship and that trust of how close you can let the planes come. Certainly, we never felt in danger, and they are used to coming close to vessels during experimental trials, and in real operations. And they are good at their job.
Davies： How close do you need to get to obtain valuable results?
Lunel： At a minimum, you have to be within 500 m so that you can go in immediately after application of dis-persant. There were cases where we were closer than that, because we wanted to have a look at that very initial process. You don't necessarily have to be in as close as we were to get the bare minimum information. And I think, therefore, it's a balance between safe operation and getting the information you want.
Mutoh： Dr. Lunel, do you have any advice for Japan?
Lunel： At the moment, because of the experience with heavy-fuel-oil spills, most of the response has been geared to spills that have already happened around Japan. With the increasing traffic in crude oil that we have been hearing about, it might be appropriate to Japan review whether the response needs to consider in more detail those spills that may be less likely to happen but maybe of larger potential volume. Clearly, you have a mechanical recovery in place that is going to be very appropriate for the heavy-fuel-oil spills, but you might want to consider,for example, a national dispersant response to complement the mechanical recovery. Clearly, the balance between how much mechanical recovery vs. dispersant you might use is going to depend on the specific oil type or the specific conditions at the time of the spill. But having that extra option might be appropriate, particularly from what we have been hearing about the trends of oil movement around Japan. As an outside observer, I would be interested to know how you would feel about that.
Kudo： Regarding mechanical recovery, You mentioned that the quantity of oil recovered by using mechanical recovery was around 5 to 10%. But I think mechanical recovery can collect more than 10%. And I think the Japanese people actually favor mechanical recovery.
Earlier you mentioned that funding for R&D was limited and therefore development work could not be fully done. In Europe is there any movement of joint research on this mechanical recovery? It seems the U.K. is pro-dispersant and Norway pro-mechanical recovery. So it may be difficult to use a common fund, but in Europe is there any movement of joint research?
