A Comprehensive Review of Canadian Marine Oil Spill Response System through the Lens of Decanting Regulations and Practices
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made a concise overview of the topic and a concise reference to existing literature. In general, the text is very well structured and has clearly defined topics. Some comments for improvement:
1. As a general drawback I could say that authors could add works where new technologies have been introduced for leakage detection in pipes carrying oil products (e.g. [1]):
[1] Nikolaidis, S., Porlidas, D., Glentis, G. O., Kalfas, A., & Spandonidis, C. (2019). Smart sensor system for leakage detection in pipes carrying oil products in noisy environment: The ESTHISIS Project. In 2019 29th International Symposium on Power and Timing Modeling, Optimization and Simulation (PATMOS) (pp. 125-126). IEEE.
2. The authors could consider enhancing the introduction section such that it better indicates the main task of the paper among its motivation. Besides, they need to point out the key message the novelty, and the potential benefits of their work.
3. The introduction section could be more brief and solid.
4. Besides authors could consider enhancing the concluding section with the main outcome of the work amongst its added value.
Author Response
- As a general drawback I could say that authors could add works where new technologies have been introduced for leakage detection in pipes carrying oil products (e.g. [1]):
[1] Nikolaidis, S., Porlidas, D., Glentis, G. O., Kalfas, A., & Spandonidis, C. (2019). Smart sensor system for leakage detection in pipes carrying oil products in noisy environment: The ESTHISIS Project. In 2019 29th International Symposium on Power and Timing Modeling, Optimization and Simulation (PATMOS) (pp. 125-126). IEEE.
Response: This study focuses on the review of current Canadian response system, organizational structure, status quo of the regulatory framework and identifying the gaps. Reviewing the spill detection technologies are not within the scope of this paper.
- The authors could consider enhancing the introduction section such that it better indicates the main task of the paper among its motivation. Besides, they need to point out the key message the novelty, and the potential benefits of their work.
Response: Modified as suggested
- The introduction section could be more brief and solid.
Response: Modified as suggested
- Besides authors could consider enhancing the concluding section with the main outcome of the work amongst its added value.
Response: Modified as suggested
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is well organized and written. I have few comments.
(1) In Line 534, Figure 6 should be Figure 2?
(2) Font sizes in Lines 754-758 should be decreased.
(3) In Line 733, the column width of Table 4 should be adjusted to show “Pre-approva” properly.
(4) In Line 767, “Following section” should be “The following section”.
(5) In Lines 385 and 386, I guess National Air Surveillance Program is one type of Surveillance Assets. To make it more clear, “National Air Surveillance Program” and “Canada Ice Service” may not be listed as separated paragraphs. Lines 403 and 404 are in the similar situations.
(6) It seems that the commonly used candidate response options are not reviewed in the manuscript. Some discussions might be included in this paper.
Author Response
(1) In Line 534, Figure 6 should be Figure 2?
Response: Modified as suggested
(2) Font sizes in Lines 754-758 should be decreased.
Response: Modified as suggested
(3) In Line 733, the column width of Table 4 should be adjusted to show “Pre-approva” properly.
Response: Modified as suggested
(4) In Line 767, “Following section” should be “The following section”.
Response: Modified as suggested
(5) In Lines 385 and 386, I guess National Air Surveillance Program is one type of Surveillance Assets. To make it more clear, “National Air Surveillance Program” and “Canada Ice Service” may not be listed as separated paragraphs. Lines 403 and 404 are in the similar situations.
Response: Modified as suggested
(6) It seems that the commonly used candidate response options are not reviewed in the manuscript. Some discussions might be included in this paper.
Response: Candidate response technologies are not within the scope of this paper. Authors have another paper which reviews and presents the recent decanting technologies and oil water separation technologies.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript conducts a comprehensive literature review of the Canadian oil spills to identify the bottle necks for oil spill response system in terms of decanting regulations. The manuscript is well written and has compiled substantial information to document the oil shipping activities, regulations and the regulatory agencies. In addition, the manuscript also includes the details of current decanting in practices in Canada and compares them to other parts of the world.
The manuscript is well written and includes a lot of information that relates to the topic of oil spill response systems. I do not have any major comments and I recommend the manuscript be accepted in its current format. Minor comments are below -
1. Figure 1 is a little confusing since it is supposed to show the response network. However, the figure looks more like an organizational chart. Is it possible to use different colors to differentiate roles? Also, is there any interaction between response organizations and regulators? This could be shown as a bi-directional arrow?
2. Line 754 - add "is" before substances.
Author Response
- Figure 1 is a little confusing since it is supposed to show the response network. However, the figure looks more like an organizational chart. Is it possible to use different colors to differentiate roles? Also, is there any interaction between response organizations and regulators? This could be shown as a bi-directional arrow?
Response: Modified as suggested
2. Line 754 - add "is" before substances.
Response: Modified as suggested
