MIMIC WP 5 - Creating effective measures to prevent accidents

Bio-tieteellinen tiedekunta / Henkilön nimi / Esityksen nimi

MIMIC WP 5 - Creating effective measures to

prevent accidentsAnnukka Lehikoinen

Fisheries and Environmental Management Group

Department of Environmental Sciences

21.04.23 1


Central output of the WP5: integrative risk analysis and decision support model• Under the current kowledge and prevailing

uncertainty, what would be the most (cost-)effective ways to decrease the risk of a major oil accident in the GoF?

• RISK = Probability * Harm• Preventive or / and post-accidental management?

• Despite of the high unpredictability in some parts of the system, we should be able to assess and compare alternative actions and investments.

• Also answering the question: In what part of the system additional knowledge (decreasing the uncertainty) would be most helpful?


Environmental risk assessment context: DPSIR-approach

Responses

ImpactsInstruments to assess the harm

DriversNeeds behind the pressures

StatesHarm caused by the pressure

Pressurescausing harm in the system

How much certain level of need creates pressure?

How / to what degree the system is affected by the pressures?

According to the instruments, should we react?

How harmful the effects are seen?(How we valuate them?)

What to doto manage the system(and what part of it)?


Decision support models

• Provide a quantitative means to study alternative decisions in the presence of multiple aims

• Help the decision-makers to make consistent and justifiable choices in complicated and multifaceted evaluation problems

• Modeling aims at finding out optimal actions; when and where investments on the future state of our environment are most effective?

• The evaluation of the nature and extent of uncertainty in different parts of the system is essential!

• The uncertainty doesn’t prevent comparison of alternative actions but makes the model to give more realistic results in the light of current knowledge


Idea of the system in WP 5

Traffic

Geometricprobability

Accident

Human error

Consequences

Magnitude andvalue of losses

Controllingthe causationprobability

Minimizing theconsequences

Controlling the traffic

Preventive management:

Post-accidental management:Minimizing theConsequences(oil recovery)

€

€

€

€

€€U

U UU

U

UUU

U


”State of the art”: SAFGOF –metamodel


Current traffic / Tanker collision risk

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

C1 C2 C3 C4 jointLocation

Yea

rs /

1 ta

nke

r co

llisi

on No actions implemented

VTS alarm + extendedpiloting

2015 traffic / Tanker collision risk

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

C1 C2 C3 C4 joint

Location

Yea

rs /

1 ta

nke

r co

llisi

on


Current traffic / Leak risk

0100200300400500600700800900

C1 C2 C3 C4 joint

Location

Yea

rs /

1 ta

nke

r co

llisi

on

th

at le

ads

to le

akag

e

No actionsimplemented

VTS alarm +extended piloting

2015 traffic / Leak risk

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

C1 C2 C3 C4 joint

Location

Yea

rs /

1 ta

nke

r co

llisi

on

th

at le

ads

to le

akag

e


Current traffic / Oil risk 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

C1 C2 C3 C4 joint

Location

Th

eore

tica

l am

ou

nt

of

oil

to

sea

(t /

year

)

No actions implemented

VTS alarm + extendedpiloting

2015 traffic / Oil risk 1

01020304050607080

C1 C2 C3 C4 joint

Location

Th

eore

tica

l am

ou

nt

of

oil

to w

ater

(t

/ yea

r)

Current traffic / Oil risk 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

C1 C2 C3 C4 joint

Location

Th

eore

tica

l am

ou

nt

of

oil

to

coas

t (t

/ ye

ar)

2015 traffic / Oil risk 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

C1 C2 C3 C4 joint

Location

Th

eore

tica

l am

ou

nt

of

oil

to c

oas

t (t

/ ye

ar)



Simplified metamodel

SAFGOF map user interface to evaluate the spatial environmental risk

+

SpillMod drifting simulations(180 scenarios * 6 years ofWeather data = 1080 simulations)

+

OILECO databaseOf conservationindexes


Oil type: heavyTraffic: 2008Hot spot: C3

Risk in grid X = P(the grid is going to be oiled) * Conservation value index


Further development of the approach in MIMIC

• New and updated sub-models

• Grounding model (Arsham)

• Level of accident tendency (human error) (CAFE)?

• Ecological risk modeling (Annukka / FEM group)

• Security?

• ???

• New current state and future traffic scenarios (O-P)

• Hot spots (areas) -> ship routes (vectors?)


Further development continues…

• More actions to be analysed (O-P, Päivi)

• Prices wherever available

• cost-effectiveness of maritime safety policy instruments (MIMIC, O-P)

• PROPABS (willingness to pay),

• CAFE (cost-benefit factor)

• More SpillMod runs if needed (OILRISK)

• Planning with the potential end users?

• Scientific use vs. real decision-making needs?


WP 5 - planned schedule

• The metamodel will be in the making all the time!• Ideas and materials are wellcome

• Input and output variables of the sub-models!‒ Alternative states

• Objective is to know the final elements and structure by the end of 2012 (MS 5)

• MS 6: building the model architecture• All the materials (statistics, model pieces and results etc.) to

be included should be ready by the end of MS 6 (April 2013)

• MS 7: Finalizing, testing and modifying the model

• MS 8: Analysing the results, writing etc.


Done so far

• State of the art –journal article manuscript allmost finalized (UH, CMS, Aalto)

• State of the art -conference paper accepted to PSAM 11 & ESREL 12 conference in Helsinki, in June 2012

• Annukka will give a presentation concerning the integrative model (state of the art model + MIMIC plans)

Documents

MIMIC WP 5 - Creating effective measures to prevent accidents