scholarly journals Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment Case Study: Dispersants Use in Shallow Waters of Northern Caspian Sea

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Broje ◽  
Nazgul Utegen
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Caspian Sea ◽  
Economic Impacts ◽  
Careful Analysis ◽  
Shallow Waters ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Impact Mitigation ◽  
Trade Offs

ABSTRACT Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) and Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment (SIMA), a broader version of NEBA, are structured approaches used by response decision-makers and stakeholders during oil spill preparedness and response to compare available oil spill response options and identify those that have best potential to reduce environmental and socio-economic impacts and facilitate fastest recovery. The process comprises four stages: evaluate data, predict outcomes, balance trade-offs and select the best response options. This paper describes a case study of Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment conducted for shallow waters of North Caspian Sea. As a part of this analysis several steps were undertaken: - Environmental conditions in the area were characterized and critical environmental and socio-economic resources were identified;- Trajectory modeling was conducted for different seasons to evaluate oil fate and behavior with and without response techniques;- Impacts of a base scenario (no response) was compared to impacts of scenarios where different response techniques were used;- SIMA methodology was used to rank response techniques based on their ability to minimize environmental and socio-economic impacts;- Optimal combination of response options for each scenario was selected. This case study demonstrated how SIMA methodology could be applied even in challenging locations requiring careful analysis of environmental and socio-economic tradeoffs to ensure that selection of response strategies is supported by best available science.

A NOVEL METHODOLOGY FOR NET ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS (SPILL IMPACT MITIGATION ASSESSMENT)

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2454-2474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. TAYLOR ◽  
Martin A. CRAMER
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Qualitative Methodology ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Response Strategy ◽  
Strategy Development ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Impact Mitigation ◽  
Independent Expert

ABSTRACT A key objective for any oil spill response is to minimize the impacts to ecological, socio-economic and cultural resources at risk. To that end, the contingency planners and incident managers have traditionally utilized a formal or informal Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) for selecting the most appropriate response option(s) to minimize spill impacts and promote recovery. The processes used to conduct a NEBA have varied considerably between industry operators, though the outcomes in terms of strategy development have been similar. This variation in NEBA approaches can lead to challenges with communicating the underlying basis of response strategies to stakeholders. The oil industry published updated guidance in 2015 to explain the general principles of the NEBA process and facilitate stakeholder involvement. However, with industry’s increasing reliance on NEBA to enhance the transparency of response strategy development, a consistent methodology for conducting formal NEBAs was required. In response to the above issue key industry Associations (API, IOGP and IPIECA) initiated a collaborative project on developing a qualitative NEBA methodology that can be utilized if other, fit-for-purpose NEBA methodologies are not applicable or available. Industry has also begun transitioning to a more representative term for the NEBA process which is Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment (SIMA). Therefore, the SIMA term is used henceforth but it is important to note that the method described herein is not exclusive to the SIMA term and, as with NEBA, only represents one of many approaches that can be utilized to conduct a SIMA. This qualitative methodology is designed to give a consistent approach to larger or higher consequence oil spill scenarios, where multiple spill response options are being considered and a formal SIMA is warranted. Several industry spill response specialists and an independent expert participated in this project, resulting in the development of Guidance on Implementing Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment (IPIECA-IOGP-API 2017 in press).

scholarly journals Kazakhstan experience in adopting NEBA within its legal framework

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinara Amanzholova ◽  
Peter M. Taylor ◽  
Aliya Sadvokassova ◽  
Gulnara Dospayeva
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Contingency Plans ◽  
Implementation Methodology ◽  
National Industry ◽  
International Experts ◽  
Simulation Exercises

ABSTRACT Kazakhstan's legal framework concerning oil spill issues has been reviewed and updated during 2015–2019, driven by the adoption of good international practice. Ensuring the full response toolkit is available and options are chosen to mitigate the overall impact of an incident were critical principles. The Oil Spill Preparedness Regional Initiative (OSPRI), in conjunction with national industry (North Caspian Operating Company - NCOC and KazMunaiGaz - KMG), shared the net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) approach and later the Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment (SIMA) with key agencies and authorities as part of this effort. As the first step, workshops and seminars on NEBA were organized at local and national levels. These were facilitated by international experts and national consultants to build awareness and understanding. The second step was to embed NEBA within the legal framework. The legal system has a strong hierarchy including Codes, Laws and Orders. The National Contingency Plan (2015), approved by Order, acknowledged NEBA and gave impetus to develop additional legislation on the NEBA process. To ensure proper legal force, it was suggested to embed NEBA higher up the hierarchy, in the Subsoil Use Code (2017). Practical implementation of NEBA (during simulation exercises) and review by authorities of a draft NEBA report prepared by NCOC, revealed that the process required further clarification. It was not clear how NEBA should be presented in contingency plans, for authorities' review and approval i.e. whether it should be a separate report or incorporated within the plan. It was mooted that proposed amendments to the Environmental Code would aid clarification. In order to support a coherent process of contingency plans' approval, NEBA should be supported by a suitable and recognized implementation methodology. The SIMA methodology has been proposed as an option in Kazakhstan. Work on the Environmental Code's amendments, incorporating suitable clarifications, is expected to be completed in 2020. Based on the experience of NEBA adoption in Kazakhstan, cooperation between industry and authorities, exercises and workshops leads to positive results. The process has taken some years, as capacity building and legislative developments were required, but is reaching a successful conclusion. This will inform the choice of response options for any future incidents, to achieve least overall ecological and socio-economic impacts.

GUIDELINES FOR DISPERSANT USE IN NEW ZEALAND1

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1185-1194
Author(s):  
Leigh M. Stevens ◽  
John T. Roosen ◽  
Paul Irving
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Marine Oil ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Flexible Framework ◽  
Key Questions

ABSTRACT This paper describes guidelines for making decisions on dispersant use in New Zealand. The guidelines are designed to facilitate and document rapid and justifiable decisions for dispersant use during a marine oil spill, and were developed by modifying existing international models and information to suit N.Z. requirements. They are based around a simple flowchart that highlights the key questions that need to be answered during a spill. Each key question in the flowchart is linked to supporting information that provides further details, or directs the decision maker—normally a statutorily appointed On-Scene Commander (OSC)—to where the information can be obtained. Although dispersant use is pre-approved in virtually all N.Z. waters, the guidelines do not provide hard and fast rules for when dispersants should or should not be used. The OSC is expected to judge, based on the information available and the type of values requiring protection, whether a dispersant response will result in a net environmental benefit, either on its own, or in combination with other response options. The guidelines provide a simple way to collect the information required to make decisions about dispersant use within a rapid, systematic, and flexible framework, with supporting information available where needed to make and document dispersant decisions. The guidelines are designed specifically for use during a spill response, and as such are self-contained, concise, and easy to read, and allow quick access to the information essential for deciding about dispersant use. While they rely on the decision maker being knowledgeable about dispersant issues, they generally will be of value to anyone involved in spill response planning and decision making.

INDUSTRY COOPERATION IN AN EMERGING REGION

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 553-557
Author(s):  
Peter M. Taylor ◽  
Kjell T. Landin ◽  
Tim Duckworth ◽  
Jan Pietersz
Keyword(s):  
Black Sea ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Caspian Sea ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
The Caspian Sea ◽  
Central Eurasia ◽  
Export Revenue ◽  
And Control ◽  
Response Capability

ABSTRACT During the 1990s, the Caspian Sea, Black Sea and Central Eurasia region emerged as one of the most important new sources of world oil supply, attracting development and providing vital new export revenue. With more growth and investment certain, the countries of the region are able to rely increasingly on the benefits arising from uninterrupted exports. As more oil is handled in the region, the shared desire is to eliminate any spills from these operations. Further to a strong commitment to apply preventive measures, a group of energy companies—working in cooperation with governments—also believe it is prudent to undertake actions that can significantly reduce the consequence of any such incidents. In 2002–03 these companies undertook a comprehensive study and detailed analyses of the state of oil spill preparedness in region. The study found that governments, companies, institutions and stakeholder groups widely agreed on the need for improved response capability. Beyond the significant economic and business risks posed by spills, there is universal concern to better protect the environment and the public. A poor spill response could harm the regions ecology, affect local business and the industry's reputation, with serious repercussions. In line with recommendations from the study, the oil industry launched an initiative to support the efforts of governments and promote regional response capability in mid 2003—the Oil Spill Preparedness Regional Initiative (Caspian Sea—Black Sea—Central Eurasia)—known as OSPRI. OSPRI embraces an overall vision, set out as … Industry and the region's governments work cooperatively to promote proven, credible, integrated, sustainable oil-spill response capability. OSPRI is action-oriented and brings a consistent, aligned approach for industry in its relationship with international and national partners when developing effective preparedness. OSPRI avoids piecemeal approaches and is encouraging planning processes based on clear command and control frameworks, the tiered response philosophy and response policy based on net environmental benefit (IPIECA 2000). This is making a significant contribution towards helping governments and operators achieve best practice in their contingency planning.

Ecological Risk Assessment Principles Applied to Oil Spill Response Planning

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Kraly ◽  
Robert G. Pond ◽  
Ann Hayward Walker ◽  
John Caplis ◽  
Don V. Aurand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Ecological Risk ◽  
Ecological Risk Assessment ◽  
Puget Sound ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Trade Offs

ABSTRACT This paper summarizes the process of a cooperative ecological risk assessment (ERA) that was used to examine the potential environmental consequences of oil spill scenarios in San Francisco Bay, California; Galveston Bay, Texas; and Puget Sound, Washington. The purpose of the ERA process is to evaluate the ecological trade-offs associated with the use of each of five potential oil spill removal options—natural recovery, on-water mechanical recovery, shoreline cleanup, dispersant use, and on-water in situ burning. The desired outcome of the evaluation is identification of the optimum mix of response options in reducing injury to each specific environment. Evaluations at each location were accomplished through a series of facilitated workshops involving technical experts and resource managers from as many stakeholder organizations as possible. At these workshops, the participants developed relative ecological risk evaluations for response options. At the conclusion of each ERA, the workshop participants felt that the cooperative ERA process had the potential to become an integral part of the area contingency planning process by facilitating the assessment of the effectiveness of response strategies contained in an Area Contingency Plan (ACP). Repeated application of the process for various scenarios should enable an area committee to optimize response strategies over time by maximizing net environmental benefit. This paper describes the process used by the participants and presents a simplified version of the ERA process amenable to shorter timeframes and consequently more scenarios.

scholarly journals Tropical Oil Pollution Investigations in Coastal Systems [TROPICS]: A 32-year Review of Response and Recovery

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Abigail Renegar ◽  
Paul Schuler ◽  
Nicholas Turner ◽  
Richard Dodge ◽  
Anthony Knap ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Crude Oil ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Coastal Systems ◽  
Dispersed Oil ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Nearshore Environments ◽  
Comparative Risk

ABSTRACT In 1984, the Tropical Oil Pollution Investigations in Coastal Systems (TROPICS) experiment began in Bahia Almirante on the Caribbean coast of Panama. This study sought to compare the impacts of a severe, but realistic spill of untreated crude oil versus chemically treated (dispersed) crude oil on tropical marine reef, sea-grass, and mangrove ecosystems. The aim of the study was to identify and evaluate the environmental trade-offs of dispersant use in tropical marine and subtidal systems. As a result of continuing research at the site, the study became one of the most comprehensive field experiments examining the long-term impacts of oil and dispersed oil exposures in nearshore tropical communities. Consequently, TROPICS has been the foundational and seminal field study which served as the historical antecedent for Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA), as well as the basis for follow-on Spill Impact Mitigation Analysis (SIMA) and Comparative Risk Analysis (CRA) for oil spill planning, preparation, and response. From the initial experiment in 1984, through three decades of study and data collection visits, the coral reef, seagrass, and mangrove communities have exhibited significantly different damage and recovery regimes, depending on whether the sites were exposed to non-treated crude oil or dispersed crude oil. While this study does not definitively determine whether or not dispersants should be applied in tropical nearshore environments, it is illustrative of the environmental and ecosystem trade-offs between surface oil impacts to the shoreline, compared to water column exposure from chemically dispersed oil. This paper provides an overview of the results and observations reported in numerous previous TROPICS publications, as a progression of damage and recovery over time. With this perspective, planners and responders can use this study to predict what damages/recoveries may be expected from an oil spill incident in this environment. The results of the TROPICS experiment are examined within the context of this recent parallel research from the perspective of ongoing implications for oil spill preparedness and response.

scholarly journals Detection of oil spill hotspots in the Caspian Sea using remote sensing (case study: Baku oil extraction facility)

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 152-166
Author(s):  
داریوش یوسفی کبریا ◽  
غزل عباسخانیان ◽  
عبادت قنبری پرمهر
Keyword(s):  
Remote Sensing ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Caspian Sea ◽  
Oil Extraction ◽  
The Caspian Sea

Properties, Preparation and Application of Oil Spill Dispersant

2014 ◽  
Vol 955-959 ◽  
pp. 140-143
Author(s):  
Wei Shen ◽  
Zhi Xia Wang ◽  
Rong Chang Chen ◽  
Chun Ling Liu
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Environmentally Friendly ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Mechanical Recycling ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Oil Spill Dispersants

The oil spill dispersant called “elimination agent of oil” is used to disperse the oil slicks to facilitate the natural elimination of oil. Oil spill dispersants are used to enhance the rate of natural dispersion of an oil spill at sea. There is growing acceptance worldwide that use of dispersants to counter the effects of an oil spill offers many advantages and can often result in a net environmental benefit when considered in relation to other response options. Timely spraying oil spill dispersants is the main measures to remove surface oil pollution and to prevent fires, when mechanical recycling cannot be used in case of emergency. Efficient and environmentally friendly oil spill dispersant meet both the emulsification dispersion and zero pollution to the environment, and has been more widely used and developed.

Net environmental benefit: introducing a new LCA approach on wastewater treatment systems

2012 ◽  
Vol 65 (9) ◽  
pp. 1624-1631 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Godin ◽  
C. Bouchard ◽  
P. A. Vanrolleghem
Keyword(s):  
Wastewater Treatment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Wastewater Treatment Plants ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Wastewater Quality ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Lca Results

Life cycle assessment (LCA) allows evaluating the potential environmental impacts of a product or a service in relation to its function and over its life cycle. In past LCAs applied to wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), the system function definition has received little attention despite its great importance. This has led to some limitations in LCA results interpretation. A new methodology to perform LCA on WWTPs is proposed to avoid those limitations. It is based on net environmental benefit (NEB) evaluation and requires assessing the potential impact of releasing wastewater without and with treatment besides assessing the impact of the WWTP's life cycle. The NEB allows showing the environmental trade-offs between avoided impact due to wastewater treatment and induced impact by the WWTP's life cycle. NEB is compared with a standard LCA through the case study of a small municipal WWTP consisting of facultative aerated lagoons. The NEB and standard LCA show similar results for impact categories solely related to the WWTP's life cycle but differ in categories where wastewater treatment environmental benefit is accounted for as NEB considers influent wastewater quality whereas standard LCA does not.

NET ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS BY APPLICATION OF GIS-A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH IN A REGION OF HIGH BIODIVERSITY AND INCREASING COMPLEXITY IN OIL PRODUCTION

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 1095-1098
Author(s):  
Geir Morten Skeie ◽  
Frode Engen ◽  
Odd Willy Brude ◽  
Marit E. Randall
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Marine Mammals ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Gas Production ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Alternative Response ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT The Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) extends from latitude 56° to 71°. Along the 82,000 km coastline and offshore, biodiversity is high, with large populations of fish, seabirds and marine mammals. In terms of oil and gas production, there is an increasing diversity in technical structures, water depth, and oil types, as recovery proceeds to smaller reservoirs. This calls for a high degree of flexibility in oil spill response strategies. According to Norwegian regulations, alternative response strategies must be analysed in a standardized way, including Net Environmental Benefit Analyses (NEBA). For this purpose, a GIS based method has been developed for net environmental benefit analysis of different oil spill response options for the NCS. Through a GIS interface, the user can interactively select a release location, an oil type, and a month for the oil spill. A standard map is generated, showing areas where different oil response strategies pose a net environmental benefit, net environmental loss, or a conflict.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document