Project on Sub-regional Risk of Spill of Oil

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