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.

RETOS™: USE OF AN INTERNATIONAL TOOL FOR ASSESSING OIL SPILL PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Elliott Taylor ◽  
Miguel Moyano ◽  
Darío Miranda-Rodríguez
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Marine Pollution ◽  
Assessment Criteria ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Readiness Assessment ◽  
Training Centre ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT The “Readiness Evaluation Tool for Oil Spills (RETOS™)” is an application upgraded in 2014 with the support of regional and international experts from industry and government, including associations such as Oil Spill Response (OSRL), the Regional Activity Centre / Regional Marine Pollution, Emergency, Information and Training Centre – Caribe (RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe), and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The ARPEL Manual and RETOS™ provide a comprehensive set of criteria for industry and governments to assess their level of oil spill response (OSR) planning and readiness. The assessment criteria, agreed upon by the participating companies and institutions, provide the foundation for a series of checklists whereby gaps can be identified in spill response planning and readiness programs. The background for the tools is the “Assessment of Oil Spill Response Capabilities: A Proposed International Guide for Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness Assessment”, developed for the 2008 International Oil Spill Conference. The RETOS™ Excel application and Manual list evaluation criteria according to the type of OSR program to be assessed. These tools have:Seven different scopes and two general 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) and identifies critical criteria deemed necessary for completeness at a basic level.An additional category for institution-specific added criteria. Given that the criteria utilized relate to best international practices, RETOS™ represents a powerful tool for international benchmarking purposes. As of the end of 2016, workshops on how to use the tools have been presented in at least seven countries with over 400 total participants. RETOS™ has been used in more than 30 countries worldwide with most of those assessing national spill preparedness programs. Initial assessment results for Level A (basic) ranged from approximately 20% to 99% completion. Over 20 companies and institutions have utilized the tool with a similar range of results. Re-assessment provides a clear indication of progress toward higher levels of preparedness. The Manual and RETOS™ are currently available in English, Spanish, Portuguese and French and can be downloaded free of charge from the ARPEL web site (www.arpel.org).

IOSC WORKSHOP REPORT: A PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL GUIDE FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING AND READINESS ASSESSMENT

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliott Taylor ◽  
Alexis Steen ◽  
Mark Meza ◽  
Benjamin Couzigou ◽  
Marc Hodges ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
National Level ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Caribbean Region ◽  
Readiness Assessment ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Response Capacity ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Capability

ABSTRACT This paper presents a proposed Oil Spill Response (OSR) Readiness assessment tool for international application that is designed to support spill response planning and readiness assessments by industry and government. This paper summarizes the content of a larger report developed by an IOSC Workshop Subcommittee and refined during an IOSC Special Workshop: Assessment of Oil Spill Response Capabilities held on 3 December 2007 in Gamboa, Panama. Each nation and industry sector has different interests and areas of knowledge with respect to spill response priorities and capabilities. As personnel change jobs, their knowledge departs with them. Consequently, expectations for response capability and the manner by which it should be attained can vary. Requirements for levels of response competency may change over time, may not be balanced by the risk of spills, and may not support long-term readiness to meet actual spill risks. There have been few attempts in the spill response community to prepare generic checklists or comprehensive guides for the assessment of response capability. Most guidance is focused on the content of OSR contingency plans. The current IOSC effort aims to be as comprehensive and as detailed as possible encompassing an entire OSR system or program. The IOSC Workshop Subcommittee prepared a broad suite of planning and readiness assessment elements to encourage improved response capacity by aiding development and maintenance of response management systems from a site level to a multi-national level and to reach beyond OSR contingency planning. This approach turns the document into a powerful management tool for evaluating oil spill response capacity at different planning levels, from local, to regional, national and multi-national. Government and industry representatives from Latin America and the Wider Caribbean Region met in Panama on 3 December 2007 to review and discuss the preliminary IOSC Guidelines. This paper and its companion report are intended to advance best international practice for OSR planning and readiness assessment. It is hoped that this IOSC Guide can be maintained as an evergreen tool by consistent use and feedback from within the spill response community.

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.

COMPARING SWEDISH OIL SPILL PREPAREDNESS TO REGIONAL COUNTRIES USING THE RETOS™ EVALUATION TOOL

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-36
Author(s):  
Jonas Pålsson ◽  
Lawrence Hildebrand ◽  
Olof Lindén
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Baltic Sea ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Full Range ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Baltic Sea ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
The Baltic

ABSTRACT 2017-253 Few standardised frameworks are designed to assess the full range of oil spill preparedness activities, from plan development, implementation, equipment, training, exercises, and response sustainability. This paper analyses the international practice of oil spill preparedness measures and compares them to Swedish practice. Friedman’s test and Dunn’s post-test have been used to compare the RETOS™ evaluation scores of Finland, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Denmark, and Norway to Sweden. The United States is examined as an external reference. The RETOS™ programme is an Excel tool developed for the International Oil Spill Conference 2008. It is a guide for industry and governments to assess their level of oil spill response, planning, and preparedness management in relation to established criteria, and is intended for international best management practices. Swedish oil spill preparedness is shown to be comparable to the Baltic Sea regional practice. The Swedish RETOS™ evaluation score is 69%, compared to the average 73.1% of the examined countries. A statistical difference exists between Sweden and both Norway and the United States. Swedish oil spill preparedness is comparable to the Baltic Sea Region countries despite: not having a National Contingency Plan, not using the Tiered Preparedness and Response concept, nor having adopted an Incident Management System. This suggests that these concepts are not essential for a functioning preparedness regime, although Sweden instead has a system serving the same function. However, it also questions what effect implementing these concepts would have on Swedish preparedness.

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 Oil Spill Response Planning in Cold and Warm Water Environments

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Susse Wegeberg ◽  
Janne Fritt-Rasmussen ◽  
Kim Gustavson ◽  
Richard J Wenning ◽  
Michael Bock
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Ecological Impact ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The Baltic

ABSTRACT The priorities for oil spill response (OSR) are to protect people, prevent or mitigate environmental damages, and minimize the long-term impacts. Several analytic approaches have emerged in the field of spill impact mitigation assessment (SIMA), a science-based framework evolved from net environmental benefits analysis (NEBA), to broaden the focus from consideration of mitigation of ecological impact to also include socioeconomic and cultural impact considerations. In the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM), a comparative risk assessment (CRA) decision-support tool was developed for identifying and comparing the ecological consequences of different oil spill response technologies in temperate/sub-tropical deep water, including the use of subsea dispersants. Another analytic assessment tool, Environment & Oil Spill Response (EOS), was developed based on offshore western Greenland and the Baltic Sea to assist in selection of oil spill response options that best mitigate the consequences of spilled oil in polar / sub-polar aquatic ecosystems in the Nordic region. In this work, we briefly review the CRA and EOS tools and highlight the shared and unique attributes of both assessment frameworks and how ecological, environmental and oil chemistry characteristics are handled in contrasting climatic and ecosystem conditions.

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