ERA Acute-Implementation of a New Method for Environmental Risk Assessment of Acute Offshore Oil Spills

Authors
Jean-Marie Libre (Total) | Christian Collin-Hansen (Statoil) | Grethe Kjeilen-Eilertsen (Total) | Tonje Waterloo Rogstad (Statoil) | Cathrine Stephansen (Akvaplan-niva) | Odd Willy Brude (DNV GL) | Anders Bjorgesaeter (ACONA) | Ute Brönner (SINTEF)
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2118/190540-MS
Document ID
SPE-190540-MS
Publisher
Society of Petroleum Engineers
Source
SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Security, Environment, and Social Responsibility, 16-18 April, Abu Dhabi, UAE
Publication Date
2018
Document Type
Conference Paper
Language
English
ISBN
978-1-61399-591-4
Copyright
2018. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Disciplines
6.5.5 Oil and Chemical Spills, 7.2.1 Risk, Uncertainty and Risk Assessment, 7.2 Risk Management and Decision-Making, 7 Management and Information
Keywords
Offshore, Environment, Oil Spill, Risk Assessment
Downloads
5 in the last 30 days
111 since 2007
Show more detail
View rights & permissions
SPE Member Price: USD 9.50
SPE Non-Member Price: USD 28.00
Abstract

Energy companies, like Statoil and TOTAL conduct Environmental Risk assessments (ERAs) as part of their risk management processes to ensure acceptable environmental risk for all operations. In some parts of the world, ERAs are required by regulators to assess risk and as a basis for evaluating risk reducing measures. A standardized ERA Acute method has been developed, providing quantitative assessment of environmental impact and risk of acute oil spills covering four environmental compartments: sea surface, shoreline, water column and seafloor. The method usesoil drift simulations and Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) data as input. Based on a selection of relevant oil spill incidents, impact and recovery timesare calculated for VECs in all compartmentsusingcontinuous functions. Several endpoints are provided including the "Resource Damage Factor" (RDF) combining the extent of an impact with recovery time, the risk matrix, and a risk comparison tool, e.g. for quantifying effects of risk reducing measures. The methodology has been benchmarked and compared to the current industry standard ERA used on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS), the MIRA method (NOROG, 2007). The ERA Acute method has also been compared with data from the real spill incidents: Deepwater Horizon (Gulf of Mexico, 2010) and Exxon Valdez (Alaska, 1989). Estimated impact and recovery time of incidents, e.g. from post-spill monitoring of environmental impact and reconstructed oil exposure data from satellite have been compared to ERA acute calculations and oil spill simulations. Acknowledging that validation of the model is challenging, the results support the new impact algorithms, and are within the range of expected uncertainties related to field observations. The continuous risk functions better discriminate the effect of small spills and of mitigation measures compared toMIRA methodology, and details of the exposure mechanisms such as exposure time and specific behavior of surface species are also included. The validity and applicability of the new ERA Acute methodology are presented in the paper, including the benefits the industry obtains from a standardized methodology providing reliable environmental risk estimations.

File Size  3 MBNumber of Pages   22

Bjørgesæter, A., Damsgaard Jensen, J., 2015. ERA Acute Phase 3 – Surface compartment. Acona report to Statoil and Total. Report No. 37571. v. 04. Oslo, 22.05.2015.

Bjørgesaeter, A., Pedersen, A., Brude, O.W., Rudberg, A., Stephansen, C., 2017: Validation with field data, ERA Acute Project Report WP2b, pp 123

Brönner, U., Nordtug, T., Jonsson, H. and Ugland K.I. 2015. Joint Report – Impact and restitution model – Water column. SINTEF & DNV GL Report. SINTEF F26517/DNV GL 1IL8NGC-13. 81 p.

Brönner, U., Stefanakos, C., and Skancke, J. (2017) ERA Acute Calculator – Technical specification. ERA Acute Project Report WP1a, 87 pp

Brude, O.W., Rudberg, A and Ostbøll, H. 2017: ERA Acute and MIRA methodology comparison, ERA Acute Project Report WP2c, pp 49

Brude, O.W., Rusten, M. and Braathen, M. 2015: Development of Shoreline Compartment Algorithms. DNV GL Report. 1ILBNGC-9. 43 pp

Brude, O.W., Tvedt, H. 2017: Environmental Risk Management Application, ERA Acute Project Report WP1b, pp 43

Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustees, 2016. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 4. Injury to Natural Resources.

French-McCay, D., 2004. Oil spill impact modeling: Development and validation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23, 2441–2456.

French-McCay, D., 2009. State-of-the-art and research needs for oil spill impact assessment modeling, in: Proceedings of the 32nd AMOP Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response. Emergencies Science Division, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada, pp. 601–653.

IPIECA/IOGP, 2013. Oil Spill Risk Assessment and response planning for offshore installations, final Report.

Libre J.M., Jennet C., Vandenbussche V., Results of Environmental Risk Analysis carried out on offshore Dunbar Installation, 12th Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, 2015, Italy.

National Research Council of the National Academies (2005) Oil Spill Dispersants - Efficacy and Effects. The National Academic Press. Washington DC. ISBN 978-0-309-09562-4. (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11283/oil-spill-dispersants-efficacy-and-effects)

Nilsen H, Greiff Johnsen H, Nordtug T, Johansen Ø (2006). Threshold values and exposure to risk functions for oil components in the water column to be used for risk assessment of acute discharges (EIF Acute). Statoil contract no.: CFOU.DE.B02.

NOAA, 2002. Environmental sensitivity index guidelines. Version 3.0. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OR&R 11. Dated March, 2002.

NOAA, 2017. ERMA Deepwater Gulf Response. A mapping application that displays data from the Deepwater Horizon Response and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment [WWW Document]. Natl. Ocean. Atmos. Adm. URL https://gomex.erma.noaa.gov/erma.html

NOROG, 2007. Method for environmental risk analysis (Mira, version 2007), Norwegian Oil and Gas Association. Oslo.

SINTEF, 2016. SINTEF MEMW, (Marine Environmental Modeling Workbench) User Manual. Version 8.01. SINTEF Materials and Chemistry, Marine Environmental Technology. Trondheim, Norway.

Spikkerud, C., Brude, O.W., Hoell, E.E., 2006. EIF Acute Damage and restoration modeling. DNV Consulting, Report to STATOIL ASA, REPORT NO. 2006-0209.

Stephansen, C., Anders BjørgesæterOdd Willy Brude, Ute Brönner, Grethe Kjeilen-Eilertsen, Jean-Marie Libre, Tonje Waterloo Rogstad, Cecilie Fjeld Nygaard, Tom Sørnes, Geir Morten Skeie, Henrik Jonsson, Marte Rusten, Trond Nordtug, Mark Reed, Christian Collin-Hansen, & Julie Damsgaard Jensen, 2017. ERA Acute – A Multi-Compartment environmental oil spill risk assessment model. IOSC,432, May 15-18, 2017 | Long Beach Convention Center, Long Beach, CA

Stephansen, C., Sørnes, T.O. and Skeie, G.M. 2015. ERA Acute – Development of Seafloor Compartment Algorithms – Biological Modeling. Akvaplan-niva Report 5425.02. 126 p

Other Resources

Looking for more? 

Some of the OnePetro partner societies have developed subject- specific wikis that may help.


  

PetroWiki was initially created from the seven volume  Petroleum Engineering Handbook (PEH) published by the  Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE).







The SEG Wiki is a useful collection of information for working geophysicists, educators, and students in the field of geophysics. The initial content has been derived from : Robert E. Sheriff's Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Geophysics, fourth edition.