spill impact mitigation assessment (sima)...why net environmental benefit analysis...
TRANSCRIPT
Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment (SIMA)A novel methodology for NEBA
Session outline
•Background to SIMA as a ‘how to’ methodology for NEBA−underlying NEBA principles remain
•Overview of the SIMA process
•API-IPIECA-IOGP SIMA joint publication−currently being finalized
2000
2015
2017
Why
Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA)transitioning to
Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment (SIMA)?
• Better reflects objectives, decision framework and shared valuesi.e. ecological, socio-economic and cultural
• Removes perceptions of spin associated with the word ‘benefit’
Principles of NEBA have not changed
NEBA / SIMA Principles• Integrate ecological, socio-economic and cultural
considerations
Integrate ecological, socio-economic and cultural considerations
NEBA / SIMA Principles
• Promote full response ‘toolkit’− not just for dispersants
Promote full response ‘toolkit’ (not just for dispersants)
• Integrate ecological, socio-economic and cultural considerations
NEBA / SIMA Principles
• Target larger/higher consequence oil spills
Target larger/higher consequence oil spills
• Promote full response ‘toolkit’− not just for dispersants
• Integrate ecological, socio-economic and cultural considerations
NEBA / SIMA Principles
• Facilitate transparency and stakeholder involvement
Facilitate transparency and stakeholder involvement
• Target larger/higher consequence oil spills
• Promote full response ‘toolkit’− not just for dispersants
• Integrate ecological, socio-economic and cultural considerations
NEBA / SIMA Principles
• Highlight industry consensus on methodology
Highlight industry consensus on methodology
• Facilitate transparency and stakeholder involvement
• Target larger/higher consequence oil spills
• Promote full response ‘toolkit’− not just for dispersants
• Integrate ecological, socio-economic and cultural considerations
SIMA Methodology Concepts
• Four stages: reflecting the existing NEBA publication
• Same underlying process for contingency planning and incident response
•Qualitative basis
NEBA in four stages
1. Compile and evaluate data to identify an exposure scenario and potential response options, and to understand the potential impacts of that spill scenario;
2. Predict outcomes for the given scenario, to determine which techniques are effective and feasible;
3. Balance trade-offs by weighing a range of benefits and drawbacks resulting from each feasible response option; and
4. Select the best options for the given scenario, based on which combination of tools and techniques will minimize impacts.
NEBA/SIMA in four stages
1. Compile and evaluate data to identify an exposure scenario and potential response options, and to understand the potential impacts of that spill scenario;
2. Predict outcomes for the given scenario, to determine which techniques are effective and feasible;
3. Balance trade-offs by weighing a range of benefits and drawbacks resulting from each feasible response option; and
4. Select the best options for the given scenario, based on which combination of tools and techniques will minimize impacts.
Risk assessment, trajectory and fate modelling, environmental resources
Relative impact on key resources
Pros and cons of the response tools considered
Response strategy combining best combination of response tools
SIM
A O
verv
iew
SIM
A O
verv
iew
Imp
act
mit
iga
tio
n f
act
or
A B1
Seabed None 1 0
Lower water column None 1 0
Upper water coloumn Low 2 1
Water suface Med 3 1
Air Med 3 1
Shorelines 3 1
Saltmarsh High 4 1
Estuarine mudflats High 4 1
Sandy beaches Low 2 1
High value resources Low 2 0
Socio-economic 4 1
Boat harbour Med 3 1
Water recreation High 4 1
Cultural None 1 0
Po
ten
tia
l re
lati
ve im
pa
ct
Resource
compartments
No interventionContain and
recover
SIM
A O
verv
iew
Co
mp
artm
en
ts c
ho
sen
Re
lati
ve im
pac
t as
sess
ed
SIM
A O
verv
iew
Impa
ct m
odif
icat
ion
fact
or
Rel
ativ
e im
pac
t m
itig
atio
n s
core
Impa
ct m
odif
icat
ion
fact
or
Rel
ativ
e im
pac
t m
itig
atio
n s
core
Impa
ct m
odif
icat
ion
fact
or
Rel
ativ
e im
pac
t m
itig
atio
n s
core
Impa
ct m
odif
icat
ion
fact
or
Rel
ativ
e im
pac
t m
itig
atio
n s
core
A B1 A x B1 B2 A x B2 B4 A x B4 B5 A x B5
Seabed None 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lower water column None 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Upper water coloumn Low 2 1 2 -2 -4 0 0 0 0
Water suface Med 3 1 3 3 9 2 6 0 0
Air Med 3 1 3 2 6 -2 -6 0 0
Shorelines 3 1 3 3 9 2 6 1 3
Saltmarsh High 4 1 3 2 1
Estuarine mudflats High 4 1 3 2 1
Sandy beaches Low 2 1 3 2 2
High value resources Low 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2
Socio-economic 4 1 4 2 8 1 4 3 12
Boat harbour Med 3 1 2 1 2
Water recreation High 4 1 2 1 3
Cultural None 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1
TOTAL 15 32 11 18
RANKING 3rd 1st 4th 2nd
Shoreline
booming
Pote
ntia
l rel
ativ
e im
pact
Not
fea
sibl
e
Resource
compartments
No interventionContain and
recover
Surface
dispersant
Subsea
dispersantIn-situ burning
SIM
A O
verv
iew
Impact modification factors allocatedTotal impact mitigation scores derived
Impact
modification
factor
Description
+3 Major mitigation of impact
+2 Moderate mitigation of impact
+1 Minor mitigation of impact
0 No or insignificant alteration of impact
-1 Minor additional impact
-2 Moderate additional impact
-3 Major additional impact
Range of scores Colour Description
8 to 12 Major mitigation of impact
3 to <8 Moderate mitigation of impact
>0 to <3 Minor mitigation of impact
0 No or insignificant change
>-3 to <0 Minor increase in impact
>-8 to -3 Moderate increase in impact
-12 to -8 Major increase in impact
SIM
A O
verv
iew
Select best options
Resource compartments
No intervention
Contain and recover
Surface dispersant
Subsea dispersant
In-situ burningShoreline booming
Pote
nti
al r
elat
ive
imp
act
Imp
act
mo
dif
icat
ion
fa
cto
r
Re
lati
ve Im
pac
t M
itig
atio
n S
core
Imp
act
mo
dif
icat
ion
fa
cto
r
Re
lati
ve Im
pac
t M
itig
atio
n S
core
Imp
act
mo
dif
icat
ion
fa
cto
r
Re
lati
ve Im
pac
t M
itig
atio
n S
core
Imp
act
mo
dif
icat
ion
fa
cto
r
Re
lati
ve Im
pac
t M
itig
atio
n S
core
Imp
act
mo
dif
icat
ion
fa
cto
r
Re
lati
ve Im
pac
t M
itig
atio
n S
core
A B1 A x B1 B2 A x B2 B3 A x B3 B4 A x B4 B5 A x B5Seabed None 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0
Lower water column Low 2 0 0 0 -2 -4 0 0 0 0
Upper water column Low 2 0 -2 -4 3 6 0 0 0 0
Water surface Med 3 3 2 6 3 9 2 6 0 0
Air Low 2 2 2 4 3 6 -2 -4 0 0
Shorelines 3 3 2 6 3 9 1 3 0 0
Saltmarsh High 4 2 3 1 0
Estuarine mudflats High 4 2 3 1 0
Sandy beaches Low 2 2 3 1 1
High value resources High 4 4 2 8 3 12 1 4 2 8
Socio-economic 4 4 2 8 3 12 1 4 2 8
Coastal tourism High 4 2 3 1 2
Inshore aquaculture High 4 2 3 1 3
Cultural Med 3 3 2 6 3 9 1 3 1 3
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
=3rd
19
2nd
34
1st
58
5th
16
=3rd
19Totals
Ranking
Key FeaturesTransparent approach
Promotes dialogue
Holistic perspectiveIntegrates ecological, socio-economic and cultural impacts
Qualitative assessmentIncorporates community values and expert judgement
Promotes all response toolsAssessing their benefits and drawbacks
Flexible methodologyAdaptable to local setting and concerns
Resource compartments
No intervention
Contain and recover
Surface dispersant
Subsea dispersant
In-situ burningShoreline booming
Pote
nti
al r
elat
ive
imp
act
Imp
act
mo
dif
icat
ion
fa
cto
r
Re
lati
ve Im
pac
t M
itig
atio
n S
core
Imp
act
mo
dif
icat
ion
fa
cto
r
Re
lati
ve Im
pac
t M
itig
atio
n S
core
Imp
act
mo
dif
icat
ion
fa
cto
r
Re
lati
ve Im
pac
t M
itig
atio
n S
core
Imp
act
mo
dif
icat
ion
fa
cto
r
Re
lati
ve Im
pac
t M
itig
atio
n S
core
Imp
act
mo
dif
icat
ion
fa
cto
r
Re
lati
ve Im
pac
t M
itig
atio
n S
core
A B1 A x B1 B2 A x B2 B3 A x B3 B4 A x B4 B5 A x B5Seabed None 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0
Lower water column Low 2 0 0 0 -2 -4 0 0 0 0
Upper water column Low 2 0 -2 -4 3 6 0 0 0 0
Water surface Med 3 3 2 6 3 9 2 6 0 0
Air Low 2 2 2 4 3 6 -2 -4 0 0
Shorelines 3 3 2 6 3 9 1 3 0 0
Saltmarsh High 4 2 3 1 0
Estuarine mudflats High 4 2 3 1 0
Sandy beaches Low 2 2 3 1 1
High value resources High 4 4 2 8 3 12 1 4 2 8
Socio-economic 4 4 2 8 3 12 1 4 2 8
Coastal tourism High 4 2 3 1 2
Inshore aquaculture High 4 2 3 1 3
Cultural Med 3 3 2 6 3 9 1 3 1 3
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
=3rd
19
2nd
34
1st
58
5th
16
=3rd
19Totals
Ranking
Modify scale for potential relative impact (no
intervention)
Modify scale for impact modification factor
Add resource compartments
Subdivide compartmentsInclude high value resources
Adapt to evaluate shoreline treatment options
Flexibility
Industry Publications on NEBA/SIMA
2000 (now retired)
2015
2017
Summary
• Four stages:
−Apply to both planning and response−Facilitates transparency
•Qualitative process - relies on expert opinion / professional judgement
• SIMA matrix - flexible although more granularity rarely changes outcome
• Stakeholder involvement and dialogue
Additional information…Rob Cox, [email protected] Director & Oil Spill Working Group Project ManagerMarine Fuels Task Force Project Manager & GHS Project Manager
Programme Manager, IOGP-IPIECA Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Projecthttp://oilspillresponseproject.org