An Application of Worst Case Scenario Concept in Oil Spill Response Planning for Offshore Drilling Operation in Brazil

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 371-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hélder O. Ferreira ◽  
Alexandre Cabrai ◽  
Álvaro Souza Junior
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Competent Authority ◽  
Offshore Drilling ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Modeling ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Under Construction

ABSTRACT The Brazilian oil and gas E&P sector has been experiencing important changes since the end of the state monopoly in 1998. These changes include a new regulatory environment which is still under construction, in particular the requirements for environmental protection. In this context, Resolution 293 of Brazilian National Environmental Council (CONAMA) was enacted regulating Facility Response Plans for oil spill incidents. These plans, which should be approved by the competent authority, include a vulnerability analysis that should discuss the probability of oil reaching certain areas as well as the environmental sensitivity of these areas. Oil spill modeling is an important tool to estimating the areas likely to be affected by an oil spill. Although oil spill modeling is also part of the environmental studies required in the environmental permitting process for oil E&P activities, there are not well defined criteria to compose the oil spill scenarios to be modeled. In order to demonstrate the impacts of different approaches in the results of oil spill modeling, a case study is presented related to an offshore drilling activity.

The Next Generation of Planning for Offshore Oil Spill Response

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1417-1432
Author(s):  
John Caplis ◽  
Andrew Krieger
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Environmental Research ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Capability Analysis ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Offshore Oil

ABSTRACT 2017-333: In 2014, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) commissioned a study to inform an update of Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) regulations for offshore oil and gas facilities and pipelines at Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 254. The study, Oil Spill Response Equipment Capability Analysis, was conducted by a team led by Booz Allen Hamilton (Booz Allen), with support from RPS Group (formerly ASA Sciences), Environmental Research Consulting (ERC), and SEA Consulting. In close coordination with BSEE, the Booz Allen team reviewed eleven worst case discharge (WCD) scenarios in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Regions. The study, which involved literature reviews, oil spill modeling, and benchmarking against foreign and domestic regulatory regimes, concluded in February 2016, and highlighted many areas for improving the requirements for response capabilities in the OSRPs. This paper focuses on the key spill modeling methodologies, observations, and results in the Oil Spill Response Equipment Capability Analysis study, and its use of a concept of operations (CONOPS) for the application of various oil spill countermeasures in response to a WCD. The modeling results provided both new insights and reaffirmed many principles that have long guided oil spill response operations. The CONOPS systematically rolls them up into an offshore-based construct for employing multiple countermeasures in ways that will most effectively reduce oil contact with the environment. This effort did not attempt to quantify environmental impacts or provide guidance on applying countermeasures based upon a net environmental benefits analysis (NEBA) or spill impact mitigation analysis (SIMA). Decision-making for implementing the CONOPS will still require an additional overlying comparative analysis that evaluates the environmental, cultural, social and economic tradeoffs in order to find the preferred balance of spill countermeasures for a given planning scenario or incident. Regardless, the use of the construct (or CONOPS) as outlined in the study offers sound improvements for response planning involving very large spills in the offshore environment.

Validating Marine Oil Spill Response Planning Assumptions and Execution with Analytics Model

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-73
Author(s):  
Holly Osen ◽  
Marcy Casement ◽  
Fred Sparks
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Response ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Limiting Factors ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Critical Resources

ABSTRACT # 2017-209 Running a full-scale emergency response operation involves coordinated and interdependent workstreams that must be sufficiently resourced and supported to ensure that objectives are accomplished. Oil spill response planning provides the framework to rapidly scale up those operations and enable essential workstreams through pre-identified resources, facilities, logistics and capabilities. A systematic analysis of response plans can be used to validate an executable tier 1 response based on local capabilities, and provide a basis for planning the strategic cascading of additional resources for tier 2 and 3 responses with consideration for the limiting factors identified through analytics. A proprietary analytics model was developed to examine and validate planning assumptions, resources and logistics against response requirements. The analysis includes a facilitated cross functional plan review using pre-defined response “workstreams” (e.g., shoreline protection and clean-up) broken down by tasks (e.g., SCAT or beach clean-up). For each task, the resources and logistics needed to accomplish the task are defined and evaluated to identify the limited or critical resources (e.g., supervisor qualifications, waste capacity, transportation, etc.). The resource requirements and constraining factors identified through the analysis are compared to the resourcing identified in existing plans and validated by business function representatives to highlight resource gaps and areas for planning and capability improvements. The emergency response planning analytics model was tested using existing oil spill response plans from two business units within the organization. A worst case scenario oil spill simulation was used as the basis for the plan analysis. The analysis produced findings indicating that existing plans were insufficient in specific areas and existing resources would be exhausted before cascaded resources could arrive to support a longer-term response to a major oil spill on water unless alternative resourcing plans were established. Specific gaps in planning, trained personnel, equipment, logistics and support facilities were identified along with recommendations for gap closure. Pilot testing of the analysis tools suggests that effective planning requires a detailed understanding of critical resources, limiting factors and workstream interdependencies so that that the strategies and tactics defined in planning (and those developed during an active response) optimize their use. Additionally, outputs from the model may be used as the basis for increasing local reserves of response equipment and supplies, developing regional mutual aid capabilities and establishing training and exercise objectives.

Upgraded RETOS™: An International Tool to Assess Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1353-1363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliott Taylor ◽  
Miguel Moyano ◽  
Alexis Steen
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Readiness Assessment ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT In 2011 the Regional Association of Oil and Gas Companies - Latin America and the Caribbean (ARPEL) developed the “Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness Assessment Manual” and its assessment tool, the “Readiness Evaluation Tool for Oil Spills (RETOS™)” with the support of regional and international experts from industry and government, including associations such as Clean Caribbean and Americas (CCA), RAC-REMPEITC-Carib, and IMO. The ARPEL Manual and RETOS™ provide a general guide for industry and governments to assess their level of oil spill response (OSR) planning and readiness management in relation to pre-established criteria. These criteria are commonly agreed upon by the institutions involved in the project and consider international best management practices. The foundation for the ARPEL Manual's concepts and criteria is the “Assessment of Oil Spill Response Capabilities: A Proposed International Guide for Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness Assessment”, a guideline developed for the 2008 International Oil Spill Conference. RETOS™ adapts evaluation criteria according to the type of OSR program to be assessed.Seven different scopes from two perspectives (government and industry) are considered, including facilities, companies' business lines, and government national programs.For each scope there are three possible assessment levels for which OSR planning and readiness assessment criteria become increasingly more demanding.Each level contains criteria in 10 different categories (topic areas). Training workshops on RETOS™ were held during 2011 and 2012. Field tests were conducted by experts and surveys were conducted among users including companies, governments and consultants. Feedback from workshops and the practical application of RETOS™ provided recommendations for upgrades that were reviewed by ARPEL. Subsequently, a proposal to upgrade RETOS was made to the IOSC Executive Committee, which decided to support the endeavor. This paper describes the upgraded version of RETOS and its availability. The upgraded version of RETOS™ has garnered interest from several institutions that contributed to its completion as reviewers: a global Tier 3 organization (OSRL), Caspian and Black Sea's OSPRI, GI WACAF, and IPIECA. This multi-institutional review increased awareness of these readiness assessment tools, is expected to further expand worldwide awareness of the ARPEL Manual and RETOS™, and provides improved OSR planning and readiness management for industry and governments alike. A unique tool that is freely downloadable from the internet, the upgraded RETOS™ is being launched at the 2014 IOSC.

Risk-Based Oil Spill Emergency Preparedness on the Norwegian Continental Shelf

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 345-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kari Stokke ◽  
Jon Rødal
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Initial Response ◽  
Coastal Protection ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Norwegian Continental Shelf

ABSTRACT The Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies (NOFO) is responsible for oil spill response, planning, and preparedness on behalf of the companies that are operating on the Norwegian continental shelf The responsibility includes initial response offshore, as well as coastal protection and shoreline cleanup. NOFO is developing a plan for regional oil spill preparedness to be implemented in 2001. The plan is based on risk assessment and covers planned oil production activities in the Norwegian offshore sector. Previously, NOFO's oil spill response plan was based on authority requirements and recognized standards. NOFO is now proposing a risk-based approach, aiming to identify the need for oil spill response in different areas of the Norwegian sector. The new approach is based on estimated probability of oil spill situations, dimensioning oil spill scenarios, and oil drift modeling to define arrival time to shore, coastal areas at risk, and amount of oil that may possibly reach the shore. The risk-based approach is an alternative to traditional “worst case” considerations and allows implementation of more cost-effective measures.

SPILL IMPACT MITIGATION ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING IN THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary Robinson ◽  
William Gardiner ◽  
Richard J. Wenning ◽  
Mary Ann Rempel-Hester
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Ecosystems ◽  
Oil And Gas Development ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Different Response

ABSTRACT #2017-351 When there is risk for oil release into the marine environment, the priority for planners and responders is to protect human health and to minimize environmental impacts. The selection of appropriate response option(s) depends upon a wide range of information including data on the fate and behavior of oil and treated oil, the habitats and organisms that are potentially exposed, and the potential for effects and recovery following exposure. Spill Impact Management Assessment (SIMA; a refinement of Net Environmental Benefits Analysis, or NEBA, in the context of oil spill response) and similar comparative risk assessment (CRA) approaches provide responders a systematic method to compare and contrast the relative environmental benefits and consequences of different response alternatives. Government and industry stakeholders have used this approach increasingly in temperate and subtropical regions to establish environmental protection priorities and identify response strategies during planning that minimize impacts and maximize the potential for environmental recovery. Historically, the ability to conduct CRA-type assessments in the Arctic has been limited by insufficient information relevant to oil-spill response decision making. However, with an increased interest in shipping and oil and gas development in the Arctic, a sufficiently robust scientific and ecological information base is emerging in the Arctic that can support meaningful SIMA. Based on a summary of over 3,000 literature references on Arctic ecosystems and the fate and effects of oil and treated oil in the Arctic, we identify key input parameters supporting a SIMA evaluation of oil spill response in the Arctic and introduce a web portal developed to facilitate access to the literature and key considerations supporting SIMA.

REVIEW OF BRAZILIAN REGULATION FOR FACILITY OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-21
Author(s):  
Alvaro Souza Junior
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Gas Industry ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
National Environment ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Environmental Agencies

ABSTRACT In April 2002, the Brazilian National Environment Council (CONAMA) enacted Resolution 293, which defines the contents and requirements for oil spill response plans for ports, terminals, pipelines and oil platforms. CONAMA Resolution 293 was undoubtedly a landmark in the history of Brazilian planning and preparedness for oil spill accidents as long as it provided a technically consistent reference for elaboration of oil spill response plans based on the identification of spill sources, vulnerability analysis of potentially affected areas, and adequate response organization, procedures and resources. A clause of the Resolution required its review in 5 years after entering into force. To accomplish this requirement, the Ministry of Environment (MMA) opened a public hearing process to collect comments and suggestions for changes. One main contributor in this hearing process was the Brazilian Petroleum and Gas Institute (IBP), which represents the oil and gas industry. IBP created an internal workgroup which discussed proposals for changes in CONAMA Resolution 293 that were subsequently sent to MMA. After the public hearing process, MMA invited a number of institutions to join a workgroup to discuss the received comments and proposed changes. In general, these institutions were mostly the same which participated in the CONAMA Resolution 293 workgroup five years before: IBAMA (federal environmental agency), Maritime Authority, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Mines and Energy, AN? (oil & gas activities regulatory agency), IBP and some state environmental agencies. Proposed changes to CONAMA Resolution 293 were sent from the workgroup to one of the CONAMA technical chambers, which approved the proposal with minor amendments. The aim of this paper is to present and discuss the relevant changes in this regulation that will affect facility oil spill response plans in Brazil.

scholarly journals New Risk-Based Framework for Oil Spill Response Planning Requirements – Ports and Oil Terminals – A Brazilian Study Case

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Cochrane Esteves ◽  
Anna Carolina Pereira ◽  
Rodrigo Zapelini Possobon ◽  
Gustavo Xavier
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Resource Sharing ◽  
Rio De Janeiro ◽  
Task Force ◽  
International Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Capability

Abstract In 2000, Brazil experienced its most relevant oil spill accident until today: 1.3 thousand cubic meters (c.m.) of crude oil were leaked from a pipeline to the waters of Guanabara Bay, in Rio de Janeiro. Therefore, in 2001 the Government implemented a federal legislation requiring oil spill response plans (OSRP) which was strongly inspired in the United States requirement for ports and terminals. In 2016, an interdisciplinary task force was initiated to improve this legislation. Thus, a new risk-based framework was developed in order to better engage some of the environmental and social-economical complexities of Brazil as adequate inputs for the oil spill response planning process. This methodology was expanded from the guidelines published by International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP). First, the concept of sensitive receptors were introduced to describe any valuable element that can be harmed by the spill. These were selected from environmental sensitivities, protection areas, wildlife occurrence, human occupation, tourism and fisheries, among others. These criticalities were categorized in five classes using an oil slick forecast modelling results for different spill volumes such as the minimum time to reach these receptors and oiling probability. After this, they were associated with certain spill volumes, resulting in three possible requirement levels. Consequently, the minimum response capability demand for the facility is calculated, as well as tactical and logistics plans. This new approach not only optimizes the allocation of first response equipment at the highest risk spots, but also regulates the sharing of these capabilities when there is a concentration of these facilities. In this paper, this methodology was applied to a major oil terminal located in a high sensitivity area at Ilha Grande Bay, in Rio de Janeiro. The worst-case scenario was around 6.923 c.m., which allowed the identification of 116 vulnerable receptors. Of these, 02 were identified as having high criticality and, therefore, were prioritized for response planning. The minimum nominal response capability was estimated as being equal to 4.760 m3/day for full deployment condition after the initial 60 hours. This value is about 25% higher than that predicted in facility's existing OSRP. However, with the application of resource sharing rules, the amount of equipment staged on site is equal to only 1298 m3/d, allowing a significant optimization due to logistics processes after the initial 24h.

SPILL IMPACT MITIGATION ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING IN THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1325-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary Robinson ◽  
William Gardiner ◽  
Richard J. Wenning ◽  
Mary Ann Rempel-Hester
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Ecosystems ◽  
Oil And Gas Development ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Different Response

ABSTRACT #2017-351 When there is risk for oil release into the marine environment, the priority for planners and responders is to protect human health and to minimize environmental impacts. The selection of appropriate response option(s) depends upon a wide range of information including data on the fate and behavior of oil and treated oil, the habitats and organisms that are potentially exposed, and the potential for effects and recovery following exposure. Spill Impact Management Assessment (SIMA; a refinement of Net Environmental Benefits Analysis, or NEBA, in the context of oil spill response) and similar comparative risk assessment (CRA) approaches provide responders a systematic method to compare and contrast the relative environmental benefits and consequences of different response alternatives. Government and industry stakeholders have used this approach increasingly in temperate and subtropical regions to establish environmental protection priorities and identify response strategies during planning that minimize impacts and maximize the potential for environmental recovery. Historically, the ability to conduct CRA-type assessments in the Arctic has been limited by insufficient information relevant to oil-spill response decision making. However, with an increased interest in shipping and oil and gas development in the Arctic, a sufficiently robust scientific and ecological information base is emerging in the Arctic that can support meaningful SIMA. Based on a summary of over 3,000 literature references on Arctic ecosystems and the fate and effects of oil and treated oil in the Arctic, we identify key input parameters supporting a SIMA evaluation of oil spill response in the Arctic and introduce a web portal developed to facilitate access to the literature and key considerations supporting SIMA.

scholarly journals Brazilian Regulation on Oil Spill: The Need of Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Zapelini Possobon ◽  
Rodrigo Cochrane Esteves ◽  
Anna Carolina Silva Pereira ◽  
Gustavo Xavier
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Environmental Safety ◽  
Coastal Protection ◽  
National Regulation ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Mechanical Removal ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Oil Spill Response

Abstract The Brazilian oil spill response main regulation has been under a major review for the last couple of years. The origins of this regulation date back to the year 2000, when two accidents of great relevance happened: the Guanabara Bay and the Iguaçu River oil spills. These two accidents quickened the promulgation of the first version of this regulation, an adaptation of the USA framework for facilities transferring oil or hazardous material in bulk (33 CFR part 154). The major changes made during this adaptation to the Brazilian laws were: 01) The scope has been expanded to cover not only transferring coastal facilities, like ports and Abstract number oil terminals, but also oil rigs, offshore oil production units, pipelines and refineries. In a later revision other facilities were included: marinas, onshore oil rigs, shipyards and nautical clubs; 02) The response resources could only be provided by the owner of the facility, which has restrained the potential benefits of a shared capability approach like, for example, a specialized response company or association that could support several facilities in a region; In practice, the application of the same ground rule for inland, coastal and offshore facilities resulted in several distortions, like a dominance of the mechanical removal technique over other response techniques. This also resulted in the application of response time requirements designed for oil terminals to offshore facilities, resulting in an oversized dedicated oil spill response fleet. In addition, this rule is inadequate to linear spill sources, like marine pipelines, and inland facilities, like refineries. Finally, because of the aforementioned distortions and also some lack of technical guidance for relevant topics, like coastal protection, oil trajectory forecasting modelling, wildlife response planning, among others, several different interpretations of the national regulation have arrived from different levels of governmental agencies. This not only allowed for distinct requirements over time from a same agency but also created confusion when comparing the response capabilities of similar installations from different regions of Brazil. Thus, the purpose of this article is to describe the improvements proposed by the Oil and Gas producers to review the Brazilian regulation. It aims at presenting the key elements and references used in the review process and the predicted response structure that could arise in order to improve Brazil's environmental safety after the new regulation is in force.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document