To burn or not to burn

While taking a match to an oil slick may sound like the making of a chaotic inferno, emergency response specialists say burning may be the most efficient way to remove large oil spills from the ocean's surface. But tests of this technique are being resisted by environmentalists as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has final authority over the matter. The debate over test burning arose most recently in Alaska when a proposal to spill and then ignite 1,000 barrels of crude on the Arctic Ocean this past summer was rejected by the EPA. The EPA didn't object to the technique or to the notion of burning spilled oil. However, it contends that it's not necessary to spill thousands of gallons of oil to conduct tests, and unnecessarily pollute the environment, when plenty of oil is already available from accidental spills. Researchers disagree, claiming they won't be able to use the burning technique on an actual spill until it has been tested in a controlled experiment. Despite such concerns, the Canadian government is going ahead with a test burn off the coast of Newfoundland next year. Faced with a choice of test burning or the kind of shoreline contamination left in the wake of the Exxon Valdez disaster, Environment Canada opts for testing. Learning valuable lessons about rapid oil-spill cleanup is worth the relatively minor risks to the environment that test burning would pose