By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies. You will only see this message once. Find out more
We regret to inform you that we have ceased publication of current announcements.
Unitedkingdom-tenders.co.uk domain is for sale. Please contact us.

/p>II.1)DescriptionII.1.1)Title attributed to the design contest/project by the contracting authority/entity: Use of chemical herders in in situ burning.

Design contest notice

This contest is covered by: Directive 2004/17/EC (Utilities)

Section I: Contracting authority/entity

I.1)Name, addresses and contact point(s)

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers
209-215 Blackfriars Road
For the attention of: Dr John Campbell
SE1 8NL London
UNITED KINGDOM
Telephone: +44 2076332352
E-mail:

Internet address(es):

General address of the contracting authority/entity: www.ogp.org.uk

Address of the buyer profile: http://www.mytenders.org/search/Search_AuthProfile.aspx?ID=AA24373

Further information can be obtained from: International Association of Oil and Gas Producers
209-215 Blackfriars Road
For the attention of: Dr John A Campbell
SE1 8NL London
UNITED KINGDOM
Telephone: +44 2076332352
E-mail:
Fax: +44 76332350
Internet address: www.ogp.org.uk

Specifications and additional documents (including documents for competitive dialogue and a dynamic purchasing system) can be obtained from: International Association of Oil and Gas Producers
209-215 Blackfriars Road
SE1 8NL London
UNITED KINGDOM
Telephone: +44 2076332352
E-mail:
Fax: +44 76332350
Internet address: www.ogp.org.uk

Tenders or requests to participate must be sent to: International Association of Oil and Gas Producers
209-215 Blackfriars Road
For the attention of: Dr John A Campbell
SE1 8NL London
UNITED KINGDOM
Telephone: +44 2076332352
E-mail:
Fax: +44 2076332350
Internet address: www.ogp.org.uk

I.2)Type of the contracting authority
1.3)Main activity
Exploration and extraction of gas and oil
1.4)Contract award on behalf of other contracting authorities/entities

Section II: Object of the design contest/description of the project

II.1)Description
II.1.1)Title attributed to the design contest/project by the contracting authority/entity:
Use of chemical herders in in situ burning.
II.1.2)Short description:
The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) in support of the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology - Joint Industry Programme (JIP) is seeking technical and complete cost proposals to conduct research investigations on the use of chemical herders to expand the window of opportunity for using in situ burning (ISB) in ice-affected waters. The objective of this research project is to advance the knowledge of chemical herder fate, effects and performance to expand the operational utility of ISB in open water and in ice-affected waters with open drift conditions.
II.1.3)Common procurement vocabulary (CPV)

76000000

Section III: Legal, economic, financial and technical information

III.1)Criteria for the selection of participants:
Criteria will be based on novelty of approach, experience in the field and cost.
III.2)Information about a particular profession

Section IV: Procedure

IV.1)Type of contest
Open
IV.2)Names of participants already selected
IV.3)Criteria to be applied in the evaluation of projects:
Novelty of approach, experience in the field and cost.
IV.4)Administrative information
IV.4.1)File reference number attributed by the contracting authority/entity:
IV.4.2)Conditions for obtaining contractual documents and additional documents
IV.4.3)Time-limit for receipt of projects or requests to participate
Date: 11.4.2014 - 12:00
IV.4.4)Date of dispatch of invitations to participate to selected candidates
IV.4.5)Language(s) in which projects or requests to participate may be drawn up
English.
IV.5)Rewards and jury
IV.5.1)Information about prize(s):
IV.5.2)Details of payments to all participants
IV.5.3)Follow-up contracts
Any service contract following the contest will be awarded to the winner or one of the winners of the contest: no
IV.5.4)Decision of the jury
The decision of the jury is binding on the contracting authority/entity: no
IV.5.5)Names of the selected members of the jury

Section VI: Complementary information

VI.1)Information about European Union funds
VI.2)Additional information:
Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology - Joint Industry Programme
Request for Proposals
Research investigations with chemical herders to expand the use of in situ burning in open and in ice-affected waters 13.3.2014
1. Description
The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) in support of the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology - Joint Industry Programme (JIP) is seeking technical and complete cost proposals to conduct research investigations on the use of chemical herders to expand the window of opportunity for using in situ burning (ISB) in ice-affected waters. The objective of this research project is to advance the knowledge of chemical herder fate, effects and performance to expand the operational utility of ISB in open water and in ice-affected waters with open drift conditions.
2. Background
The use of chemical herders, also known as oil herders, oil collecting agents, or herding agents, for use in oil spill response has been studied since the 1970s (Garrett and Barger, 1972; Rijkwaterstaat, 1974; Pope et al., 1985; MSRC, 1995). Herders rapidly spread across a water surface to create a surfactant monolayer that reduces the water surface tension. When the monolayer reaches the boundary of an oil slick, it affects the balance of surface forces acting at the edge of the slick and causes the oil to contract to a new, thicker equilibrium state.
Originally, herders were considered as a potential oil thickening technique to aid mechanical recovery operations in open water. Due to the fragile nature of the surfactant monolayer, herder application was practical for only very calm sea conditions with a short window of effectiveness- on the order of tens of minutes. Consequently, herders were found to be an impractical tool for offshore mechanical recovery, as slicks tended to re-spread before skimming operations could be fully carried out and the slick thickness produced by herders (3 to 5 mm) did not approach optimal conditions for most skimmers (100s of mm).
Compared to mechanical recovery, in situ burning operations proceed rapidly, provided that an oil slick is thick enough to ignite and sustain efficient combustion (approximately 2-4 mm). With this in mind, research since 2004 has shifted to the use of herders as an aid to in situ burning operations, primarily in open drift ice conditions (SL Ross, 2007; Buist et al., 2011). The presence of even an open drift ice cover helps to promote a calmer sea surface. Most importantly, responders can implement in situ burning rapidly enough to take advantage of the relatively short period of peak herder effectiveness. Once ignited, the induced draft driven by the burn creates an inward flow of air at the water surface that helps maintain the oil in a thicker pool for continued combustion. Following a successful 2008 field test against an ice edge in a large opening within the pack ice, this research was expanded to investigate the potential use of herders for in situ burning in calm open water conditions (SL Ross, 2012; Buist and Meyer, 2012).
Before 2008, the majority of experiments used the US Navy herder (USN) product, including a cold-water formulation. In an attempt to further improve the herder technique, in 2008 and 2009, a series of laboratory tests and ice-basin tests were carried out to evaluate the efficacy of several silicone-based surfactants (‘superwetters') as potential oil slick herding agents. Silicone surfactants are known to be more effective surfactants than hydrocarbon-based surfactants (such as Span 20, the active ingredient in the USN herder) in other applications. In addition, studies indicate that silicone surfactants that enter the environment slowly degrade to silicate (sand), water, and carbon dioxide. One silicone-based herder of the three tested significantly outperformed the USN herder in most tests with similar conditions. These tests only evaluated the herding capability of the silicone herders; slicks were not ignited.
In 2012, both the USN and silicone-based herders, renamed Thickslick 6535 and Siltech OP-40, respectively, were listed on the US EPA product schedule for the National Contingency Plan (NCP) as approved surface collecting agents. Product listing details are available at:

- http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/products/thickslick.htm

- http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/products/siltech.htm

These two products are now available through DESMI-AFTI, and a helicopter-based application system is under development and expected to be available in 2014 (Lane et al., 2012).
Research to-date has investigated herder performance with respect to water temperature, salinity, ice presence and oil type/properties (Buist et al., 2011). The majority of experiments have been conducted at either bench-scale or basin scale with and without slick ignition. Despite a considerable body of knowledge on the performance of herders in controlled experiments, additional information is needed to better understand the operational utility and range of function of this oil spill response technology.
3. Statement of work
This is a request for a fully-costed proposal to conduct research investigations in the following three topics areas.
Task 1 Summary of existing knowledge and previous research
- Prepare a brief summary of previous research, focusing on herder fate and effectiveness, and environmental aspects (e.g., toxicity, biodegradation, fate), and list key references.
Task 2 Chemical herder fate, effects and windows-of-opportunity
- Design and conduct an experimental laboratory scale programme with sufficient replicates to investigate the following topics on the environmental effects of using chemical herders for in situ burning operations:
a) toxicity (acute aquatic and acute vs. chronic)
b) biodegradation and bioaccumulation
c) physical fate (e.g., fraction of herder burned, fraction remaining in aquatic environment, and dilution potential in water column)
d) air emissions (emissions need to be monitored/evaluated with burning and with physical testing). This should include the physical and chemical analysis of soot to determine residuals of silicon surfactants
- Design and conduct an experimental laboratory and meso-scale programme with sufficient replicates to investigate the following topics on the windows-of-opportunity for using chemical herders for in situ burning operations:
a) effect of oil properties, waves, and slush ice on herder effectiveness and slick ignitability
b) effect of oil weathering processes (evaporation and emulsification) on herder effectiveness and slick ignitability
- Design and conduct an experimental laboratory scale programme with sufficient replicates to investigate the impact of the herder sheen on birds if they dive into it? Will it remove water-proofing and result in hypothermia and or sinking?
Task 3 Educational materials
a) Develop summary information and/or material (e.g., text, images, and video) for use by the JIP Communications Committee to describe chemical herders, how they function, their fate and effects, and relevant research findings. This work will be prioritised in consultation with the Communications Committee and needs to be coordinated with an ongoing public communications programme planned as part the field release project.
b) In co-ordination with OGP, prepare and present research findings from Tasks 1 and 2 at a technical conference.
c) In co-ordination with OGP, prepare and submit a paper on the results of Task 1 and 2 to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
4. Proposal
This RFP does not commit OGP to contract for any supply or service. Those responding to this RFP are advised that the OGP will not pay for any costs incurred in preparation of a response to this invitation. All correspondence and documentation associated with this invitation will be in English.
Submissions and information will not be shared with other potential contractors.
Clarity in presentation is important so the reviewer can easily understand the objectives of the project, how they will be accomplished, and what outcomes can be anticipated without having to contact the contractor for additional data or clarification. Tables, charts, photographs, or other graphics are encouraged where their inclusion will provide a better understanding of the project problem statement, objectives, or methodologies.
4.1 Proposal format
Each proposal should include a table of contents with section numbering and titles that correspond below.
Section Number and Title General Section Description
1.0 Executive Summary Stand-alone synopsis of the proposal
2.0 Organisational Capabilities and Project Management Qualifications of contractor to conduct proposed research
3.0 Problem Statement Research question and/or problem to be addressed
4.0 Project Description Expanded narrative with contractor's interpretation of required processes and products
5.0 Background Relevant findings from previous research
6.0 Goals and Objectives Target goals and objectives
7.0 Methodology Planned activities to achieve goals and objectives including identification of risks and risk mitigation strategies.
8.0 Deliverables Expected deliverables to be developed
9.0 Schedule Chart showing milestones and timeline
10. Staff Expertise of key personnel to be engaged
11.0 Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Information should be provided on Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) as appropriate for the type of work to be performed.
12.0 Cost Proposal Breakdown of costs for each project milestone
The following points provide additional guidance on the expected content and scope of selected sections.
Organisational Capabilities
Provide information on your organisation describing its capabilities, project management processes and level of technical expertise in the subject area under investigation. The proposal should demonstrate the ability of the organisation to accomplish the project successfully by describing similar successful research projects using the same or similar facilities in the past. The use of subcontractors in specialised areas is encouraged to ensure the highest possible level of technical and operational experience is brought to bear on the project.
Schedule
Separate work activities into discrete elements where either project deliverables or key tasks are completed. Provide a chart which shows the project start at time zero and the running number of days as the project progresses.
Staff/Personnel
Identify the Principal Investigator (PI) for the project and provide information on his/her educational background, practical or analytical work experience, scientific publications or other supporting information. All other support staff should be identified with similar background materials. Delineate the roles that support staff will play. Provide statements on the continuity of personnel affiliated with the project throughout its duration. The PI will be considered the key staff person for this project. OGP must be consulted before replacing the PI. The replacement PI must have similar work and publication experience.
5. Meetings
The contractor shall include monthly progress reviews, and a meeting prior to the preparation of draft final report. The meeting prior to the preparation of the draft final report will be conducted face-to-face. Monthly progress review meetings will be conducted by teleconference with web presentations, as appropriate. The contractor shall prepare and send written records of all meetings conducted to Programme Manager.
6. Travel
The submission should list all proposed trips and the number of personnel involved. The face to face meeting will be conducted in London, UK.
7. Deliverables
The deliverables will be:
- Technical reports on Tasks 1 and 2. The contractor will provide a draft final and a final report for each task. Expect two revisions before going final. OGP will require twenty-one days to review each report. OGP will submit comments on the report to the contractor who will provide a final report prior to the contract end date that shows how all of OGP's comments have been addressed.
- Presentations on Task 1 and 2 at a major technical conference (electronic files plus confirmation of public presentation). (see 7.1.1.)
- Peer reviewed paper submitted to a scientific journal on results of Tasks 1 and 2. (see 7.1.1)
7.1.1. Final Report Publication
Sixty days before any manuscript is submitted for publication, authors will submit it to the JIP for review, including any new data or analytical procedures not seen in previous reviews. Completed JIP reviews are due within 30 days to permit contractors time to consider them prior to submission for publication. Authors must fairly consider all review comments when preparing a final draft for publication. Any other external communication, including media interviews, relating to the Final Report, need to be advised to the Technical Working Group Chair (Project Sponsor) who will inform the Communications and Executive teams. Following review by the JIP Communications and Executive Committee, the contractor may proceed with publication. The no-censorship clause (below) applies to all publications.
From JIP Publication Policy dated December 2011
"JIP reviewers may question the research methods used, results, or interpretations of results in annual reports, but may not censor, delay or prevent publication, nor threaten future funding in order to ensure compliance with their views. Contractors and the TWG must consider, but not necessarily adopt, all review comments that arise during annual reviews”
7.1 Monthly Progress Reviews
Provide monthly progress reviews. The review report should include a brief summary of preceding work and overall progress made against the schedule and any technical, schedule, or cost problems encountered. List significant meetings conducted, consultations, or other contacts made in connection with the contract.
7.2 Test Plan
Provide a project test plan, design, and schedule for Task 2.
8. Cost Proposal
The submission must detail the time and costs that will be required to complete the project. For each key deliverable and/or task, list the number of hours that each individual on the project team will dedicate to the project. Hourly rates and total costs for reach individual must be provided for each key deliverable/task. Expenses related to travel must be broken down to show the task item the costs will be incurred. All costs are to be estimated in United States Dollars.
9. Evaluation criteria
The JIP will assess the submissions with regard to their technical approach and degree of innovation, the qualifications and capabilities of the company, principal investigators and key personnel, demonstrated contract performance, cost, and levels of outside support such as networks, partnerships and links to related research efforts. Information should be provided on Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) as appropriate for the type of work to be performed.
10. Responses

Potential contractors must provide all relevant information no later than Friday 11.4.2014. Documents should be in ‘pdf' and Microsoft ‘Word' formats and sent to . The proposal should provide contact information including: name, postal address, phone number(s), fax number and e-mail of designated company point of contact. OGP representatives may or may not choose to meet with potential contractors. Any discussions would only be for clarification of potential capability to meet the technical requirements of the scope of work.

11. Questions

Questions regarding this announcement shall be submitted by e-mail to OGP, to (). Questions should not contain proprietary or classified information.

12. References mentioned in the request for proposals
Buist, I and P Meyer. 2012. Research on Using Oil Herding Agents for Rapid Response In Situ Burning of Oil Slicks on Open Water, Proceedings of the 35th AMOP Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response, Environment Canada, Ottawa, pp. 480-505 (open water).
Buist, I, S Potter, T Nedwed, J Mullin. 2011. Herding surfactants to contract and thicken oil spills in pack ice for in situ burning, Cold Regions Science and Technology, 67: 3-23. (review paper)
Garrett, WD, and WR Barger. 1971. Control and Confinement of Oil Pollution on Water with Monomolecular Surface Films, Final Report to US Coast Guard, November 1971, Project No. 724110.1/4.1.
Lane, P, I Buist, T Nedwed, A Tidwell. 2012. Recent Efforts to Develop and Commercialize Oil Herders, Proceedings of the 35th AMOP Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response, Environment Canada, Ottawa, pp. 472-479. (application system)
Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC), 1995, Chemical Oil Spill Treating Agents. MSRC Technical Report Series 93-105, Herndon, VA.
Pope, P, A Allen and WG Nelson. 1985. Assessment of Three Surface Collecting Agents during Temperate and Arctic Conditions, Proceedings of the 1985 Oil Spill Conference, API/EPA/USCG, Washington, DC, pp. 199-201.
Rijkwaterstaat. 1974. Shell Herder Trials, Report to the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Gravenhage, Holland.

SL Ross Environmental Research. 2007. Mid-scale Test Tank Research on Using Oil Herding Surfactants to Thicken Oil Slicks in Broken Ice, Report to U.S. MMS, Agip Kashagan North Caspian Operating Company, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Sakhalin Energy Investment Company and Statoil ASA, Herndon, VA. (http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/554.htm)

SL Ross Environmental Research.2012. Research on Using Oil Herding Agents for Rapid Response In Situ Burning of Oil Slicks on Open Water, Report to U.S. BSEE, February 28, 20
(MT Ref:114459).
VI.3)Procedures for appeal
VI.3.1)Body responsible for appeal procedures
VI.3.2)Lodging of appeals
VI.3.3)Service from which information about the lodging of appeals may be obtained
VI.4)Date of dispatch of this notice:
14.3.2014