WMU‐IMO Conference on Oil Spill Risk Management 7‐9 March 2011 Malmö, Sweden Albrecht Lentz, COWI
Baltic Sea
Baltic Sea • Nine coast countries • Nine national emergency response units for oil and chemical spill • No overall risk model • No overall approach for optimising response strategies Æ Reason for initiating BRISK/BRISK‐RU
BRISK area
Background information • Initiated by the Response Group of HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) • Aim: To implement the Baltic Sea Action Plan (strengthening of sub‐regional co‐operation in the response field) • BRISK was selected 2008 in EU's Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007‐2013 and chosen as "strategic project" • BRISK is included in the EU strategy for the Baltic sea Region as a flagship project
BRISK Part‐financed by the EU Lead partner: Project partners: Main consultant:
Denmark (Admiral Danish Fleet) Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and HELCOM COWI A/S
BRISK‐RU Financed by the Nordic Council of Ministers Lead partner: Russia Coordinator: Information Office of the Nordic Council of Ministers in Kaliningrad Main consultant: COWI A/S
Model outline Prognosis for ship traffic
Future riskreducing measures Risk Risk-reducing reduction measures
Ship traffic and other ship activities Types and quantities of oil and chemicals
Spill frequency Identification of sources of spills
Spill scenarios: - cause - type of spill - magnitude - location
Risk Risk of of spill spill effect impact Risk of damage to environment
Spill Spill impact effect
Emergency response to spills
Future response strategy
Sensitivity
Scope • Vessels ! • Land‐based activities • ( Offshore oil and gas extraction ) • (Other offshore activities ) • Air traffic, satellites etc. • Subsea dumping sites • Nature
Traffic density
Traffic model: Route net
Accident frequency model • Fujii's model (ship‐ship collisions, collisions with objects)
• Statistics per sailed mile or per hour (groundings, fire, illegal discharges etc.)
Accident probability • Expected number of accidents per year • Route collisions (red) • Node collisions (blue) • Groundings (yellow)
Accident probability • Collisions are scaled up (for better visibility) • Groundings not shown
Spill model • Simulation‐based model (ship‐ship collisions)
• Statistics per accident (other spill causes)
Spill risk • Expected number of spilt tons per year (oil and hazardous substances) • Route collisions (red) • Node collisions (blue) • Groundings (yellow) • Other accident types are part of the model, but do not influence the overall results significantly
Spills up to 5,000 tonnes
Spills of all sizes
Ice season vs. ice‐free season (Traffic data from 2008/2009( Ice (2 months) Kalix
No ice (10 months) Haparanda
Kalix
Haparanda
Kemi
Kemi
Luleå
Luleå
Piteå
Oulu
Piteå
Oulu
Raahe
Raahe
Skellefteå
Skellefteå
Kalajoki
Kalajoki
Kokkula
Pietarsaari
Kokkula
Pietarsaari
The effect of ice upon collision probability: Gulf of Bothnia Ice
No ice
The effect of ice upon collision probability: Gulf of Finland Ice
No ice
Spreading and fate model Region 2område 2 Hydrografisk
Processes: Drift and spreading,
And fate, emulsification, etc. Impact Påvirkning afon kyst
Or submersed oil
coast
Udslip Spill
… and combat Hydrografisk 1 Region område 1
Response model Sub‐regional areas • Serve to facilitate sub‐ regional cooperation
PRELIMINARY FIGURE
Response model Booms
PRELIMINARY RESULT
Response model Pumps
PRELIMINARY RESULT
Response model Recovery capacity • Action radius 2 + 6 hours • Recovery rate: Red: 200‐640 m3/h Yellow: 75‐200 m3/h Green: 0‐75 m3/h Blue: 0 m3/h
PRELIMINARY RESULT
Vulnerability model
Vulnerability model Aggregated map (seasonal) EXAMPLE FROM EARLIER PROJECT
Work ahead • Final aggregated sensitivity maps • Project partners decide about response scenarios to be analysed • COWI carries the respective scenario analyses out • Project partners agree about response capacity relocations, investments etc.
Work ahead Example of a spill risk map with sensitivity weighting (earlier Danish analysis) EXAMPLE FROM EARLIER PROJECT
Conclusions • An integrated model including modelling of sea traffic, accidents at sea, spills, response, fate and environmental sensitivity • Tool to compare the effectiveness of different response strategies (locations, capacities etc.) • Decision‐support for sub‐regional response planning