Moshood abayomi yahaya thesis

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY
MOSHOOD ABAYOMI YAHAYA
RISK EVALUATION OF OIL SPILLAGE IN OFFSHORE ENERGY
(CRUDE OIL TRANSPORTATION)
SCHOOL OF ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL AND AGRIFOOD
Offshore and Ocean Technology with Subsea Engineering
MSc
Academic Year: 2014 - 2015
Supervisor: George Prpich
September 2015

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL AND AGRIFOOD
Offshore and Ocean Technology with Subsea Engineering
MSc
Academic Year 2014 - 2015
MOSHOOD ABAYOMI YAHAYA
Risk Evaluation of Oil Spillage in Offshore Energy
(Crude Oil Transportation)
Supervisor: George Prpich
September 2015
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree of Masters of Science
© Cranfield University 2015. All rights reserved. No part of this
publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the
copyright owner.

i
ABSTRACT
Global predicted increase in offshore exploration, production and transportation
of oil within sensitive marine areas has increased the risk of oil spillage in recent
times. The logistics of the mid-stream activities and the increasing significance of
hydrocarbon in the transportation industry, has increased the threat to the marine
environment. Transportation is said to account for a third of all spills offshore to
date according to statistics. It is therefore important to anticipate the potential risk
from these types of disasters on different continents. In this project, likelihood and
potential impact of oil spillage in crude oil transportation is examined, taking into
account historical trend in different regions (UK, Europe, Africa, Asia, North
America and South America). The assessed risk is evaluated, bringing forth a risk
ranking, to determine the hotspots of oil spillage worldwide. Additionally, a
qualitative analysis of the various risk management framework in the each
regions was carried out, in order to determine the most proactive. The preliminary
results of the research shows that Europe, Asia and North American coasts are
the critical locations of marine spills, with Europe representing the most important
oil spill hotspot globally. Furthermore, the result indicates that the UK presents
the lowest threat of oil spills from marine transportation, owing to its high
prevention and regulatory standards. A conclusion was drawn that the United
Kingdom offers the most proactive marine oil spill prevention standards.
Following a broad analysis of the research results, an oil spill risk management
framework was recommended for the high-risk regions based on the UK and
International marine oil spill prevention standards
Keywords:
This thesis is focused on marine crude oil transportation

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Click here to enter acknowledgement text

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................. viii
LIST OF EQUATIONS........................................................................................ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................ x
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... 13
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 14
1.1 Background............................................................................................. 14
1.1.1 Research Statement......................................................................... 15
1.1.2 Aims and Objective .......................................................................... 15
1.2 Oil Spillage in Offshore Environments .................................................... 16
1.2.1 Offshore Oil Spill Sources ................................................................ 17
1.2.1.1 Manmade spills.......................................................................... 18
1.2.2 Oil Spill Impact ................................................................................. 19
1.2.2.1 Environmental Impact................................................................ 19
1.2.2.2 Economic impacts...................................................................... 20
1.2.2.3 Political Impacts......................................................................... 21
1.2.2.4 Health Impact............................................................................. 22
1.3 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................... 23
1.3.1 Offshore Oil Spill Risk Analysis ........................................................ 23
2 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................... 25
2.1 Data Sources.......................................................................................... 25
2.1.1 Spill Data.......................................................................................... 26
2.1.2 Crude Oil Movement Data................................................................ 26
2.2 Risk Assessment .................................................................................... 26
2.2.1 Risk Analysis.................................................................................... 27
2.2.1.1 Likelihood of Oil Spills................................................................ 27
2.2.1.1.1 Spill Rate............................................................................. 28
2.2.1.2 Oil Spill Consequence Analysis ................................................. 29
2.2.1.2.1 Possible Spill Amount.......................................................... 29
2.2.2 Risk Evaluation ................................................................................ 29
3 RESULT ........................................................................................................ 30
3.1 Historical Trend....................................................................................... 30
3.1.1 Oil Spill Occurrence.......................................................................... 30
3.1.2 Volume of Oil Spilled........................................................................ 31
3.2 Likelihood................................................................................................ 32
3.2.1 Oil Spill Rate .................................................................................... 32
3.2.2 Probability of Oil Spill ....................................................................... 33
3.3 Consequence.......................................................................................... 34

vi
3.3.1 Projected Spill Volume ..................................................................... 34
3.3.2 Oil Spill Response and Damage Costs ............................................ 35
3.4 Oil Spill Risk Index.................................................................................. 36
4 DISCUSSION................................................................................................ 37
4.1 Historical Trends Analysis....................................................................... 37
4.2 Regions of Concern ................................................................................ 37
4.3 Oil Spill Prevention.................................................................................. 40
4.3.1 UK Oil spill prevention policy............................................................ 40
4.3.1.1 Tanker Designs and Construction.............................................. 41
4.3.1.2 Training and Licencing of Vessel Crews.................................... 41
4.3.1.3 Mandatory Use of Escort Tugs and Towing Vessels ................. 43
4.3.1.4 Vessel traffic Management ........................................................ 44
4.3.1.5 Oil filtering equipment and oil discharge monitoring and control
system ................................................................................................... 45
5 Conclusion..................................................................................................... 45
REFERENCES................................................................................................. 47
APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 51
Appendix A Major Oil Spill Incidences.............................................................. 51
Appendix B Oil Spill and Trade Movement Data .............................................. 52
Appendix C Basic Oil Spill Cost Estimation Model (BOSCEM) Estimation
Parameters....................................................................................................... 54

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Global Offshore Oil and Gas Production……………………………..14
Figure 1.2 Onshore vs Offshore Oil Production................................................ 15
Figure 1.3 Figure Global Average Oil Spilled by sources (1990-1999)............. 17
Figure 1.4 Global Average Oil Spilled by sources (2000s)............................... 18
Figure 1.5 Total Amount of Oil Spilled by Decades.......................................... 19
Figure 3.1 Average Number of Spills per Region (1980-2014)......................... 30
Figure 3.2 Historical Spill Trend- Average Number of Oil Spill Accident per
Decade (1980-2014).................................................................................. 31
Figure 3.3 Average Volume of Oil Spill per Decade (1980-2014)..................... 31
Figure 3.4 Oil Spill Rate (Spill/Billion Tonnes).................................................. 32
Figure 3.5 25 Years Spill Rate (1990-2014).................................................... 33
Figure 3.6 Probability of One or More Spill/Year from 2015-2024.................... 34
Figure 3.7 Predicted Spill Average Spill Volume per Year (2015-2024)........... 35
Figure 3.8 Oil Spill Response and Damage Cost ............................................. 35
Figure 3.9 Total Oil Spill Cost........................................................................... 36
Figure 4.1 Global Crude Oil Trade Movement.................................................. 39
Figure 4.2 Tanker being accompanied by Two Escort Tugs ............................ 43
Figure 4.3 An Emergency Towing System being Delivered via a Helicopter.... 44
Figure 4.4 A Typical Example of an Automated Identification System ............. 45

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Projected Crude Oil Export Movement 2015-2024 ........................... 34
Table 3.2 Oil Spill Risk Ranking ....................................................................... 36
Table A-1 Biggest Oil Spills inHistory...…………………………………………….51
Table B-1 Annual Number of Oil Spills >700Tonnes for 1980-2004……………..52
Table B-2 Oil Trade Movement 1980-2014………………………………………..53
Table C-1 Per-Gallon Oil Spill Response Costs Applied…………………………54
Table C-2 Socioeconomic Base Per-Gallon Costs……………………………….54
Table C-3 Environmental Base Per-Gallon Costs – Source:” (Etkin, 2004)” 55
Table C-4 Response Cost Modifiers for Location Medium Type Categories…..55
Table C-5 Socioeconomic & Cultural Value Rankings……………………………55
Table C-6 Response Method And Effectiveness Adjustment Factors………….56
Table C-7 Freshwater Vulnerability Categories……………………………………56
Table C-8 Habitat and Wildlife Sensitivity Categories…………………………….56

ix
LIST OF EQUATIONS
[1] Smith et al. (1982), Poison Derivative ........................................................... 27
[2] Spill Rate...................................................................................................... 28
[3] BOSCEM Response Cost................................................................................ 29
[4] BOSCEM Socio Economic Damage Cost ........................................................ 29
[5] BOSCEM Environmental Damage Cost .......................................................... 29
[6] Risk Index .................................................................................................... 29

x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BTonnes Billion Tonnes
ITOPF International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation

13
Risk Evaluation of Oil Spillage in Offshore Energy
(Crude Oil Transportation)
Moshood Abayomi Yahaya1, George Prpich1
1School of Energy, Environmental and Agrifood, Cranfield University, Cranfield,
Bedfordshire, MK430AL, UK
ABSTRACT
Global predicted increase in offshore exploration, production and transportation
of oil within sensitive marine areas has increased the risk of oil spillage in recent
times. The logistics of the mid-stream activities and the increasing significance of
hydrocarbon in the transportation industry, has increased the threat to the marine
environment. Transportation is said to account for a third of all spills offshore to
date according to statistics. It is therefore important to anticipate the potential risk
from these types of disasters on different continents. In this project, likelihood and
potential impact of oil spillage in crude oil transportation is examined, taking into
account historical trend in different regions (UK, Europe, Africa, Asia, North
America and South America). The assessed risk is evaluated, bringing forth a risk
ranking, to determine the hotspots of oil spillage worldwide. Additionally, a
qualitative analysis of the various risk management framework in the each
regions was carried out, in order to determine the most proactive. The preliminary
results of the research shows that Europe, Asia and North American coasts are
the critical locations of marine spills, with Europe representing the most important
oil spill hotspot globally. Furthermore, the result indicates that the UK presents
the lowest threat of oil spills from marine transportation, owing to its high
prevention and regulatory standards. A conclusion was drawn that the United
Kingdom offers the most proactive marine oil spill prevention standards.
Following a broad analysis of the research results, an oil spill risk management
framework was recommended for the high-risk regions based on the UK and
International marine oil spill prevention standards

14
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Globally, the danger posed by oil spills remains compelling, particularly in regions
of high oil production and transportation. The universal increase in demand for
energy and the quest for vast oil and gas reserves has shifted the focus of the
industry to offshore exploration and production. In figure 1.1 below is a world map
with an overview of global offshore oil and gas production.
Figure 1.1 Global Offshore Oil and Gas Production – “Source: (Rochette , et al., 2014)”
Since the commencement of offshore crude oil production in the 1940s, there has
been a consistent growth in production from 1 million barrels/day in the 1960s to
24 million barrels/day today (Sandrea & Sandrea , 2007). This accounts for about
a third of the world’s production (Ferentinos , 2013). Figure 1.2 below highlights
the increase in offshore production over time.

15
Figure 1.2 Onshore vs Offshore Oil Production –“ Source: (Ferentinos , 2013)”
The global growth in oil and gas production is expected to continue in an
increasing rate. This is very much connected the global energy trends, which
points toward continuous reliance on oil and gas as the main energy source.
Consequently, the potential impact of exploration, production and transportation
of crude oil on the marine environment is therefore of great concern (Fingas ,
2002).
1.1.1 Research Statement
The growing global demand for oil and the acknowledgement of hydrocarbon as
the optimum energy source, as well as a valuable strategic tool and diplomatic
mechanism has spurred intensive endeavours to develop offshore oil resources.
Increase in offshore exploration and production activities comes with the largely
unwanted risk of accidental oil spillages in domestic and international waters. Oil
spillage causes serious harms to the marine environment and ecosystem,
underwater infrastructures, and more importantly human health & safety. In this
project, a risk prediction and evaluation tool is developed for oil spillages in crude
oil transportation, taking into account the environmental impacts, loss of
reputation, costs of cleaning-up the surface, etc.
1.1.2 Aims and Objective
The main objectives of this research are:
 To provide an extensive review on oil spill risk assessment.

16
 To categorise the causes and impact of oil spillage
 To assess the likelihood and consequence of oil spillage for different
regions based on historical data provided by the International Tanker
Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF).
 To evaluate and rank risk associated with each region, in order to
determine the region with the most proactive oil spill risk management
framework.
 To suggest effective risk reduction techniques for the high risk regions.
1.2 Oil Spillage in Offshore Environments
The International Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) defines oil spill as loss of
containment of hydrocarbon, which causes an impact that reaches the
environment (OGP, 2013). It can be as a result of natural, accidental or intentional
discharge of liquid hydrocarbons into the environment (Chen , et al., 2012) and
usually refers to oil released into the marine areas due to human activities and
from various spill source like tankers, offshore platforms, drilling rigs and wells.
The first recorded spillage resulted due to natural oil seeps in the sea bottom. As
early as 1500, the Portuguese-born voyager Juan Cabrillo cruised into current
day Santa Barbara, California, and commented on the oil he saw rising out from
a natural seep (Chukwu, 2007).
Since the Juan Cabrillo report, there has been a few reported oil spill incidences
(Chukwu, 2007). However, on the morning of March 18, 1967, was the first oil
spill incident to attract media attention as well as public outcry, as the Torrey
Canyon ran aground on Pollard Rock on Seven Stones Reef off Lands’ End in
England. The cause of the spill was deemed to be master's negligence. .
Public attentions and anxieties about oil spillage has been much higher over the
last four decades, due to its enormous effect on human lives, investments and
environment. Regularly, public distress magnifies with media reports of
occurrences like the Deep water horizon (Gulf of Mexico), Prestige spill off the
coast of France and the Exxon Valdez oil spill. According to reports, spillages of

17
differing magnitude has occurred in the coasts of 112 countries since 1960, with
an estimated global annual spill of 2 billion litres of crude oil and petroleum
product (Chukwu, 2007). In Appendix A is an overview of major oil spills, clearly
ranking the over 9,000,000 barrels Arab Gulf spill in 1991 as the largest spill in
history
1.2.1 Offshore Oil Spill Sources
The source of offshore oil spills can be classified into four broad categories:
natural seeps, crude oil extraction, transportation, and consumption (Chen , et
al., 2012).
Natural seeps are of great significance, and are considered the most critical origin
of hydrocarbon release into the ocean, surpassing each of the different sources
of crude oil spillage through its exploitation by humankind (Chen , et al., 2012).
A substantial quantity hydrocarbon is released annually from natural seeps
(Natural springs from which liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons leak out of the
ground), with an estimated annual seepage of 6,000,000 tonnes globally (Wilson,
et al., 1974).
The pie chart below summarises the average, annual releases of petroleum into
the environment by source categories during the period 1990-1999.
Figure 1.3 Figure Global Average Oil Spilled by sources (1990-1999) – “Source- (Chen , et al., 2012)”

18
The percentage of oil spill by the different sources is obviously different today as
shown in the figure below. This can be attributed to the major oil spills recorded
as a result of the offshore oil and gas activities since the year of reference.
Figure 1.4 Global Average Oil Spilled by sources (2000s) – “Sources: (Fingas, 2011)”
1.2.1.1 Manmade spills
Apart from the Natural leak of hydrocarbons out of the ground, oil release into the
marine environment can also be as a result of operational and accidental spillage
of oil during exploration, production and transportation of crude oil. Figure 5 below
is an overview of the amount of oil spilled by the various manmade source, during
offshore oil and gas activities.
As figure five clearly point out, marine transportation activities are the most
significant cause of manmade release of hydrocarbon into the marine
environment, contributing as much as 67.5, 50.2 and 42.2 percent of the world’s
operational and accidental spills in the 70s, 80s and 90s respectively
(Environmental Research Consulting, 2001).

19
Figure 1.5 Total Amount of Oil Spilled by Decades- “Source: (Environmental Research Consulting, 2001)”
1.2.2 Oil Spill Impact
Offshore oil spills are of tremendous concern due to the enormous economic loss
and the harm to ecological systems, public health, society and community they
may cause (Chen , et al., 2012). According to (Environmental Research
Consulting, 2001), the degree of oil spill impact is independent of the spill source
(i.e. tanker or platform). It is however determined by various elements which
includes; the type and quantity of oil and its conduct when released. Additionally,
the magnitude of impact also depends on the physical attributes of the influenced
area, climate conditions and season, the mode and efficiency of the clean-up
response, as well as the biological and economic qualities of the area, and their
reaction to oil contamination (Amini, 2007).
1.2.2.1 Environmental Impact
The harmful effects of oil spill on the environment are numerous, and poses
significant impact on environmental quality, which affects all aspects of marine
ecosystems. Environmental effects encompasses unfavourable consequences
and death to marine creature. It also includes the decimation of marine vegetation
that constitutes the habitation of marine species, as well as the disruption of entire
ecosystems (Environmental Research Consulting, 2001).

20
The impacts of accidental spills on the ecosystem of the affected area can be
catastrophic, and might lead to irretrievable damages. According to (Nichols &
Kildow, 2014), the 2010 Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill (which is probably the
most catastrophic environmental disaster ever in the USA) provoked an
expansive ecological impacts in the region, causing the loss of possibly
thousands of miles of shoreline and wetlands for decades to come. The spill led
to complete disruption of the whole region’s economy, annihilating tourism and
fisheries, while also seriously harming the environment and dislodging and/or
causing the death of scores of sea birds and animals (Beukes, 2012).
In the same vein, (Cheremisinoff & Davletshin, 2011) reported that the Exxon
Valdez spill killed as much as seven hundred thousand sea birds and five
thousand sea otters, in addition to the death of all reproductive females a of killer
whales in the region of the spill. (Cheremisinoff & Davletshin, 2011) also reported
that the impact of the Ixtoc I spill was even more overwhelming, destroying scores
of millions of crabs on Mexican seashores, while also killed 80 percent of the
segmented worms and shrimp-like crustaceans in the sand along Texas
beaches.
1.2.2.2 Economic impacts
Offshore oil spills are of tremendous concern due to the enormous economic loss.
Economic impacts encompasses the loss of the spilt oil, response and clean-up
costs, third party claims. It also includes the estimated cost of destruction and
damage to environment and properties, and disruption of income-generating
enterprises such as fishing, transportation and tourism (Socio-economic loss).
Economic impacts of oil spills has been widely documented in literatures, with
majority of reported values running into millions of dollars, and billions in some
cases. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill for instance incurred an estimated loss of
$1.2 billion for ecosystem service value from degradation of the roughly 500,000
affected wetland acres across Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (Nichols &
Kildow, 2014). (Nichols & Kildow, 2014) also claimed that an additional loss $4.3
billion real estate value was recorded across the entire Gulf coast, plus a further

21
$22.7billion in form of tourism damage in just over three years after the spill, as
well as a commercial fishery ranging between $115 million to $247 million over
the same period.
According to (Noussia, 2010), the financial implications of the Deepwater Horizon
spill estimated eclipse the overall financial impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in
1989 – which in itself resulted in as much as $3.5billion settlement and in $5
billion in legal and financial settlements. The exact cost of fine and settlement
incurred as a result of the DWH spill is difficult to estimate, due to continuous
legal and liability cases against the operators. (Chen , et al., 2012) also reported
a clean-up cost of $2 billion for the Exxon Valdez incident and $9 billion for the
Deepwater Horizon incident.
1.2.2.3 Political Impacts
The political impacts of oil spillages are far less tangible than the environmental
or economic impacts, and are extremely hard to measure. Basically, the political
effect of spills, and particularly a single spill, can significantly alter the outlook and
direction of oil spill contingency planning and by extension, industrial regulations
(Environmental Research Consulting, 2001).
Historically, Santa Barbara channel blowout in 1969, gave birth to the National
Contingency Plan, while the ARGO MERCHANT spill brought about symbolic
improvements in the Coast Guard’s offshore response potential (Marine Mammal
Commision, 2010-2011). Most notably, the Exxon Valdez incident, drove the
implementation of the OPA 90 regulations, which has since being the regulatory
standard for oil spill prevention and control (Environmental Research Consulting,
2001).
Although oil spillage itself is an unwanted event, its political impacts can either be
positive or negative (Environmental Research Consulting, 2001). Political impact
of the Exxon Valdez spill can be seen as positive as it strengthened oil spill
prevention and response plans through the introduction of OPA 90. The negative
political impacts from spillages can be in form of:

22
 Discords amongst companies and associations participating in spill
response, especially after a failed response exercise
 Damaging media reports bringing about overstated image of the
oversights that might have brought on a spill or damages emanating from
a spill
 Loss of believe in the activities of the affected company by the general
public.
On the other hand, positive political impacts of oil spillage (although the direct
effect spills itself cannot be seen as positive) involves:
 Increased public alertness on an effective national and international oil
spill prevention and response framework
 Application of new standards and guidelines that addresses crucial oil spill
prevention and response problems.
 Improved coordination and collaboration among companies and
associations from positive interaction in a crisis situation.
1.2.2.4 Health Impact
In the event of a massive oil spill, health impact on the spill source operators,
clean-up crew members and residents of the affected locality becomes a source
of great concern. Although there are only little available data on the physical
consequence of oil spill, such impacts can however not be overlooked. For
instance the Exxon Valdez oil spill killed 11 (Eykelbosh, 2014), with others left
injured.
Also, in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, many residents have complained of
asthma, breathing troubles and discomforts. Additionally major health complains
has also included migraines, nausea, and throat irritation as well as chronic
bronchitis. Such health distress can bring about substantive causes of action in
toxic tort for exposure to dangerous substances and chemicals (Olawuyi, 2012).
There are just a couple research focused on the consequence of oil exposure on
human health. According to (Chen , et al., 2012) most of these studies provided

23
evidence of direct connections between exposures to spilt oil and the display of
severe physical, psychological, genotoxic and endocrine reactions from the
exposed individuals.
1.3 Risk Analysis
Risk analysis applies society’s risk tolerance and preferences by identifying,
selecting, and using specific risk-reducing strategies (Scarlett, et al., 2011).
According to (Kanjilal, 2015), risk is basically two components: probability or
likelihood of occurrence, and severity of consequences. Traditionally, risk
assessments, which are an integral part of risk analysis processes, are aimed
towards the evaluation of the likelihood of a hazardous event and the likely
adverse effects of that occurrence. Controls should be applied either to reduce
the likelihood of occurrence of an adverse event or to reduce the severity of the
consequences.
1.3.1 Offshore Oil Spill Risk Analysis
Assessing the risk of oil spill can be a complex process. This can be done by
consequence modelling, or by statistical analysis based on historical spill data
and amount of oil transported around coastal areas. According to (Stewart &
Leschine, 1986), they propose three general approaches to oil spill risk
assessment: these are intuitive, empirical and simulation approach. The first
approach relies on relevant information gathering, for use as a benchmark for
judgement of oil spill risks by experts and decision-making personnel in the field.
This involves extensive data that is predominantly narrative, or graphic, it lacks
any analytical grade required for classification into A1 judgement. The approach
employed within this paper is the empirical approach and follows the (Stewart &
Leschine, 1986) methodology. However, their literature compares the different
approaches and they argued the probability approach developed my MIT can be
broken down into a further three categories. These categories are direct
projection, regression and the probability models. The probability approach will
form the core of this papers framework as the oil spill occurrences meet the
criteria for a poisons process according to (BOEM, 2012). To avoid ambiguity the

24
simulation approach has been cited as being corrective and as such falls out of
the scope of the review.
The approach using the probability model addresses problems from a statistical
perspective by analysing data from oil spills and incorporates the uncertainty
within the framework. Furthermore, (Smith, et al., 1986) proposed an oil spill
probability model (using a Bayesian reference), this was further developed by (
Anderson, et al., 2012) to estimating the global probability of oil spill during tanker
transport for a projected period. Three limitations of the literature are identified.
Firstly, it is limited to global and Canadian spill analysis. Secondly, it fails to
compare oil spill risks for different continents and regions, in order to attribute an
assertion as to the continent with the highest risk of marine tanker oil spills risk
acceptance criteria. In conclusion, overall it fails to quantify consequences of the
spills in line with the framework for a hazard-based analysis.
There are some limitations associated with the probability model; it is a likelihood
prediction tool. It however does not predict the consequence. (Etkin, 2004)
Literature On the other hand focuses on a consequence analysis model. In his
literature he developed a “Basic Oil Spill Cost Estimation Model (BOSCEM)”to
quantify the environmental, social and economic cost of oil spill. Though
conclusive, this literature however falls short of conducting a robust risk
assessment, as it ignores the likelihood of spill occurrence.
Estimation of the likelihood of initiating events from historical statistics is
undoubtedly the most employed risk assessment approach (Vinnem, 2014).
Questions have been raised by different researchers on the benefit of risk
analysis approach to risk management without the provision of a befitting barrier
and mitigation plan. Majority of researchers however agreed on the immense
benefit of a comprehensive risk assessment in predicting the chance of oil spill
occurrence and as well the magnitude of impact in the unfortunate event of it
occurrence. A common ground recently being held is the fact that a standalone
likelihood and consequence evaluation only focus on providing numbers, without
quality directives that may be applied to prevent occurrence of accidents. It is
therefore recommended by (Vinnem , 1999), that for a risk assessment study not

25
to be seen as a mere “number magic”, it results should be applied in provision of
procedures for combating the possibility, and reducing the severity of oil spill.
Taking the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example, there where huge flaws
identified in the BP response plan during investigations (Beukes, 2012). The lack
of adequate risk assessment and associated contingency planning for the
occurrence of an oil spill, of the intricacy and size of the Deepwater Horizon blow-
out was apparent. This was mainly due to the adoption of a “prescriptive”
approach to safety regulation by U.S. authorities, despite the known risks
associated with the prescriptive regulation, which has prompted the international
trends of adopting a safety case approach.
In conclusion, the literature search has identified some key issues. First, that past
oil spill incidences provides vital information for the development of an extensive
and holistic risk assessment model, which incorporates likelihood (for predicting
future occurrences) and consequence (for analysing the possible effects)
analysis towards anticipating future events. Secondly, although likelihood and
consequence provide a strong basis for oil spill prediction as well and adequate
risk ranking, it however would present a flawed risk management exercise without
an effective risk mitigation and reduction measure.
2 METHODOLOGY
This section involves a comprehensive process of identifying, analysing and
evaluating oil spill risk during marine transportation. This includes Examination of
worldwide historical data on oil spill accidents, to determine the relative risk
between continents (with particular focus on the UK), so as to identify the region
with the highest threat of oil spillage.
2.1 Data Sources
Although the types of reported oil spill data varies by sources, it would generally
include information on the spill substance, size, source, and location. For this
report, information like the number of oil spill incidences, spill quantity, volume of
oil transported (for each continents) are very much relevant.

26
2.1.1 Spill Data
The ITOPF keeps up a database of oil spillage from tankers, as well as combined
carriers and barges. The data includes information on accidental spillages since
1970. For historical purposes, spills are generally categorised by size, <7tonnes
(small), 7–700 tonnes (medium) and >700tonnes (large) by the ITOPF. However,
for the purpose of this project, the period 1980-2014 will be considered, being the
period covered by the global crude oil trade movement statistics (Courtesy: BP
statistical review of world energy) used in estimating likelihood and consequence
of spills.
Additionally, whilst the ITOPF statistics covers the <700tonnes spills, this would
not be analysed in this project (due to the irregularity in global reporting of smaller
incidents), as the main focus would be on the large spills (>7000tonnes).
Data in table B-1 (Appendix B) depicts the oil spill data in a thirty-five years period
(1980-2014).
2.1.2 Crude Oil Movement Data
The BP global energy database (Statistical Review of World Energy) includes the
crude oil trade movement data on different continents, for the period 1980 to
2014. Because the BP oil export statistics was limited to continents, the UK data
was extracted from the DECC’s (Department of Energy and Climate Change)
report on Crude oil and petroleum products (production, imports and exports,
1970 to 2014). In table B-2 (Appendix B) is the crude oil trade export data, for
the different regions.
The crude oil trade movement data is projected to 2024 by linear extrapolation,
which provides a close behaviour to the variable nature of crude oil export
volume.
2.2 Risk Assessment
Risk assessment is the overall process of risk identification, analysis and
evaluation. The key elements of the risk assessment employs the following
simple approach.

27
 Hazard identification: what could go wrong and why,
 Likelihood analysis (Analysis): what is the probability that things will go
wrong,
 Consequence analysis (Analysis): how much damage can be caused by
the event,
 Risk calculation (Evaluation): frequency or likelihood combined with
consequence.
2.2.1 Risk Analysis
The risk analysis is aimed at determining the relative risk between different
geographic regions. It involves the estimation of the likelihood of an identified
hazard leading to oil spill, and also the estimation of the potential consequence
that could arise from the event.
2.2.1.1 Likelihood of Oil Spills
Smith et al. (1982), presented a derivation of Poisson process (equation 1) for
estimating the likelihood of oil spill using a Bayesian inference technique. The
probability of n spills over some future exposure t (the volume of oil handled) can
be calculated using;
𝑷[𝒏 𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒔 𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒇𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒕]
=
{(𝝀𝒕) 𝒏
𝒆−𝝀𝒕
}
𝒏!
[1]
Where; λ= Rate of spill occurrence per unit exposure (Spills/BTonnes).
t = Volume of oil to be handled (Future Exposure) (BTonnes)
n= Number of spills over some future exposure
According to ( Anderson, et al., 2012), To determine if the counting process of
spill occurrence is a Poisson process, the occurrence of spills must meet the
following three criteria:
 N(0) should be zero with a probability of up 1.
 The procedure should have independent increase (i.e., the amount of spill
incidences for any particular interval does not depend on the preceding or
succeeding intervals).

28
 The amount of incidences in any interval of exposure t must be Poisson
distributed with a mean of λt (i.e., this procedure should have fixed
increments where the amount of spills that occur in any interval relies only
on the exposure in the interval).
These criteria has been satisfied as with the following observations:
 No spill can take place when no oil is transported.
 Additionally, assessment of historical data revealed that individual spill
incident are independent of preceding spill incidences over time and are
independent of volume of oil handled.
 Lastly, following a sensitivity analysis performed by ( Anderson, et al.,
2012), In an instance where the data shows that there was a decrease in
the frequency of spill events with time and transportation, it was observed
that this was as a result of decrease in volume of oil transported in the
same period.
2.2.1.1.1 Spill Rate
Spill rates, also known as the estimated occurrence rate of oil spills, is expressed
in terms of the estimated mean number of spills per billion tonnes of oil handled.
Oil spill rates can be evaluated based on historic spill occurrences and the
associated volume of oil transported.
𝑺𝒑𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆(𝝀) =
𝑻
𝑵
[2]
Where; T= Past exposure (Volume of oil transported in the past)
N= Number of spills observed in the past per unit exposure
(Spills/BTonnes)
The probability of occurrence of a spill incident can be achieved by substituting
the solved spills rates in equation 2 into equation 1. For the probability calculation,
a spill rate of 25 years period (1980-2014) was selected, in order to capture
reasonable amount of spills for regions with little or no spills recorded since the
year 2000.

29
2.2.1.2 Oil Spill Consequence Analysis
In this report, oil spill consequence will be estimated (in terms of cost), using the
US EPAs’ (Environmental Protection Agency) Basic Oil Spill Cost Estimation
Model (BOSCEM). The model incorporates spill-specific factors (Appendix A) that
influence costs – spill amount; oil type; response methodology and effectiveness;
impacted medium; location-specific socioeconomic value, freshwater
vulnerability, habitat/wildlife sensitivity; and location type.
𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕 = 𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆
𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒕
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝑿 𝒎𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒓 𝑿 𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒂𝒎𝒏𝒕 [3]
𝑺𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒐 − 𝒆𝒄𝒐 𝒅𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒄𝒐 = 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒐 − 𝒆𝒄𝒐
𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒕
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝑿 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒐 − 𝒆𝒄𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒓 𝑿 𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒂𝒎𝒏𝒕 [4]
𝑬𝒏𝒗 𝒅𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒕 = 𝑬𝒏𝒗
𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒕
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝑿 𝟎. 𝟓(𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒉𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒓 + 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒓)𝑿 𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒂𝒎𝒏𝒕 [5]
The methodology used for estimating oil spill costs, including response costs and
environmental and socioeconomic damages (Equations 3, 4 and 5 respectively),
can be used for actual or hypothetical spills. Note that the shaded columns in the
tables in Appendix A represents default values, which will be used for this
analysis.
2.2.1.2.1 Possible Spill Amount
The expected spill volume for the period 2015-2024 can be calculated by
estimating the volume of oil spilled per billion tonnes of oil transported. The
estimated rate is then multiplied by the projected (using linear extrapolation)
crude oil trade export volume from for each regions.
2.2.2 Risk Evaluation
The overall risk calculation, which provides a comparative analysis of the current
risks of oil spill from transportation sources can be achieved by combining
likelihood and consequence as show in the equation below.
𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 = 𝑳𝒊𝒌𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒉𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒙 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 [6]
In general, a conservative approach has been adopted when analysing data and
the overall estimate of risk has erred on the high side to take account of the
uncertainty in some data.

30
3 RESULT
The following section evaluates the relative risk of oil spill between specified
regions. This was achieved by analysing historical spill data, through the
application of the methodology described in chapter 2, to determine the likelihood
of large oil spill occurrences, and its impending consequence.
3.1 Historical Trend
3.1.1 Oil Spill Occurrence
The ITOPF data, as shown in figure 3.1 below, indicates that in the period from
1980–2014, a total of 214 large spill cases was recorded. Of this incidences,
about 37% (79spills) took place in the Asian waters, 24% (52 spills) in North
America, 18% (38spills) in Europe, 11% in Africa, 7% in South America and 3%
in the UK.
Figure 3.1 Average Number of Spills per Region (1980-2014)
From the year 1980 through 2014, there have been a consistent improvement in
spill records. Over this period, the UK as shown in figure 3.2 below, has
experienced a 100% decline in large spill occurrence, as no large spill has been
recorded since the year 2000. In similar trend, spill record has improved
considerably across all continents, with 90% reduction in Africa, 80% in Asia,

31
87% in Europe, 97% in North America and massive 100% decline in South
America.
Figure 3.2 Historical Spill Trend- Average Number of Oil Spill Accident per Decade (1980-2014)
3.1.2 Volume of Oil Spilled
In a similar trend to the number of spills above, there has been a consistent
reduction in spill volume over the years (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3 Average Volume of Oil Spill per Decade (1980-2014)

32
3.2 Likelihood
3.2.1 Oil Spill Rate
Spill rates, expressed in terms of spills per billion tonnes (Spill/BTonnes) of oil
handled, was calculated for each region using equation 2. As shown in figure 3.4,
North America with 10.32spills/BTonnes, has the highest spill rate over the 35
years period (1980-2014) of analysis. Europe and UK comes next with 3.7 and
3.11 spill/BTonnes respectively, with South America on 2.92 spills/BTonnes. On
the lower end is Africa and Asia with 2.29 and 2.25 spills/BTonnes respectively.
Figure 3.4 Oil Spill Rate (Spill/Billion Tonnes)
Although the spill rates for the 25 years period (used for likelihood analysis in this
report) are very much lower than that of the complete 35 years shown above, the
plot in figure 3.5 shows similar trend with figure 3.4.

33
Figure 3.5 25 Years Spill Rate (1990-2014)
3.2.2 Probability of Oil Spill
The likelihood analysis was performed by substituting the spill rate for the
different regions into equation 1, in order to estimate the corresponding
probability of an average of one or more spills per year, from 2015 to 2024.
The results provided in figure 3.6 below indicates that the biggest threat of oil spill
occurrence come from Asia, with a probability of 0.98. Europe closely follows with
0.967, North America 0.81 and Africa 0.14. South America which happen to be
last of the continents is 0.0095, while UK has a probability of 0.56E-8.

34
Figure 3.6 Probability of One or More Spill/Year from 2015-2024
3.3 Consequence
3.3.1 Projected Spill Volume
The predicted spill volumes estimates are based on forecast volume of oil
transported. Table 3.1 below shows the projected volume of oil to be exported
from each region between 2015 and 2024.
Table 3.1 Projected Crude Oil Export Movement 2015-2024
The expected spill volume for the period 2015-2024 (based on the projected
export movement (table 3.1)) was calculated as described in chapter 2. Figure
3.7 below shows the expected spill volume for the different regions. Europe is
expected to witness the highest hydrocarbon release of about 38,000 Tonnes per
year over the period. Asia comes next will about 8000Tonnes, North America
YEARLOCATION UK AFRICA ASIA EUROPE N. AMERICA S.AMERICA
2015 0.05 0.38 1.39 0.58 0.27 0.19
2016 0.04 0.39 1.41 0.59 0.28 0.19
2017 0.04 0.40 1.43 0.61 0.29 0.20
2018 0.04 0.40 1.45 0.62 0.30 0.20
2019 0.04 0.41 1.47 0.64 0.30 0.20
2020 0.04 0.41 1.49 0.65 0.31 0.20
2021 0.04 0.42 1.51 0.67 0.32 0.21
2022 0.03 0.42 1.54 0.68 0.33 0.21
2023 0.03 0.43 1.56 0.70 0.33 0.21
2024 0.03 0.43 1.58 0.72 0.34 0.21
GRANDTOTAL 0.17 2.11 7.68 3.42 1.63 1.05
AVERAGE 0.03 0.42 1.54 0.68 0.33 0.21
PROJECTEDCRUDEOILTRADEMOVEMENT(BTONNES)(2015-2024)

35
6000Tonnes, Africa 5000Tonnes and UK 4000Tonnes. South America promises
to be the least contaminated with a little over 1000Tonnes.
Figure 3.7 Predicted Spill Average Spill Volume per Year (2015-2024)
3.3.2 Oil Spill Response and Damage Costs
The Basic Oil Spill Cost Estimation Model (BOSCEM) was used to estimate the
expected average costs of oil spills per year, using the estimated spill volume
from table 3.1 above, the result of which is shown in figure 3.8. Spill cost (which
depends on spill volume) follows the same trend the same trend as the spill
volume above. Europe has the highest Response and damage cost and South
America, the least.
Figure 3.8 Oil Spill Response and Damage Cost

36
Similarly, Europe is expected to have highest total spill cost (Figure 3.9). With the
same trend as figure 3.8 above, South America is expected to have the least spill
cost.
Figure 3.9 Total Oil Spill Cost
3.4 Oil Spill Risk Index
Oil spill risk index (overall risk calculation) which can be derived from equation 6,
combines the probability of spills occurring, with the expected damage and
response cost. The results, presented in table 3.2, indicates that Europe is the
region with the greatest risk from large oil spills.
Table 3.2 Oil Spill Risk Ranking
Country Risk Rank
UK 1.04E+01 1
SOUTH AMERICA 5.12E+06 2
AFRICA 3.46E+08 3
NORTH AMERICA 2.36E+09 4
ASIA 3.86E+09 5
EUROPE 1.79E+10 6
RISK RANKING

37
4 DISCUSSION
This study was conducted to assess and evaluate oil spill threats to different
regional coasts across the world. The risk evaluation result lent some insight into
how oil spill threats compares across the different regions. It also provided some
relative measures of the magnitude of various threats within each region.
A key component of the risk assessment process is evaluating the associated
risks in each region, while also comparing effectiveness of various risk reduction
measures in such regions, in order to determine the most effective prevention
measure that can be brought to bear on oil spill risks now and in the future (which
is the main focus of this chapter).
4.1 Historical Trends Analysis
Historical spill trends points towards a sharp drop in oil spill occurrence (as shown
in figure 3.2). This sharp decrease can be attributed to increased industry
concerns, growing public pressure, more stringent government regulations
(Vieites , et al., 2004), and improved spill prevention technologies (IPIECA, 2005).
Although over the years, the quantity of oil produced and transported has greatly
increased as the world’s economy has expanded. Industrial and governmental
efforts towards the improvement of the safety standards of marine oil
transportation have meant the additional risk implied from increased movements
of oil has not been realised.
Even as the past four decades have been largely characterized by an overall
decrease in the number of accidents and tonnes of oil spilled in the sea (Figure
3.2 & 3.3). The decreasing trend in the number of spills is obviously less distinct
in Europe (between 2000 and 2014), a point very much supported by (Vieites , et
al., 2004).
4.2 Regions of Concern
The oil spill risk index (combined likelihood and consequence), illustrated with the
risk ranking in table 3.2, describes the relative threat from each region. The result
infers that Europe, Asia and North American coasts are the critical locations of

38
marine spills globally, corroborating results of the empirical analysis by (Burgherr,
2007). This papers result however points conclusively to the European continent
representing the highest level of exposure to oil spill threats. The results from
investigations by (Vieites , et al., 2004)and (Burgherr, 2007) also validate the
suggestion that Europe represents the most critical location for oil spills globally.
The high figures attributed to risk within the European coast can be associated to
the huge level of maritime (as shown in figure 4.1) traffic across the continent.
(Burgherr, 2007) and (Reynaud, 2009) suggested that European waters
represent the bulk of ensemble of maritime routes, connecting trade movement
between other continental routes, through the European Atlantic and the
Mediterranean sea (Route to a third of the world’s trade). Furthermore, the Strait
of Gibraltar also represents one of the busiest areas for maritime traffic (Oceana,
2003) (Reynaud, 2009). Conclusion could possibly be drawn that many of the
locations have ports for petroleum refineries located within their port boundaries.
The results also suggest that locations with minimal levels of spills can be
attributed to a low level of marine operations within the coastal waters. However,
for the South American and Sub Saharan African locations, which fall under this
category, this may also be as a result of low crude oil transport activities to
refineries over long distances. With one of the main refinery locations being
Texas, this could also attribute to the reason for low spill activity. Sub Saharan
African reporting standards may be the reason for low levels of risk to spills being
reported. This could be attributed to a poor regulatory frameworks required for
reporting standards according to published studies by ( European Parliament,
2011).

39
Figure 4.1 Global Crude Oil Trade Movement
Finally, the result indicates that the UK presents the lowest threat of oil spills from
marine transportation. Having a coastal region with intensive offshore oil
production and transportation like the North Sea, coupled with heavy marine
traffic on the English Channel is expected to increase the risk of tanker spills in
the region. However, Maritime traffic seems less critical in this regional context,
with high oil spill safety record which can be attributed, partly to improved spill
prevention technology. Additionally, increasing implementation of stringent
regulations (which includes enforcement of fines) has further reduced the risk of
spills in the region (Kloff & Wicks, 2004).
Furthermore, in relation to such implemented regulations, the onus rests with the
decision makers within the UK region of the North Sea to maintain their high
regulatory standards. However, though results suggest the UK waters as having
lower risk attributed, some studies have contradicted this low risk score in recent
times. Such studies have argued that and identified concerns such as a lack of
willingness of operators of tankers to hire tug boats.

40
Moreover, tanker owners have been heavily criticised for hiring insufficient
number of tugboats as well as the excessive pressure placed on crew-members
to spend less time at ports to avoid tides. In relation to pressures, it can is
accepted that the commercial aspects can be controlled even more stringent
adherence to regulation.
In accordance with such regulation, IMO are suggesting the implementation of a
safety culture to remove commercial pressures and have publicized an
amendment to the 1995 Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping
(STCW), see (IMO, 1997) for detailed description. For instance, the addition of
the International Safety management code to the SOLAS legislation is an
example of legislation driven best practice. This however will improve
management standards to the required level to sustain best practice.
4.3 Oil Spill Prevention
Oil spill may occur more frequently in certain region and have potentially serious
consequences, but may constitute less of an overall threat because of prevention
measures in effect in such regions. There is a vast collection of oil spill prevention
procedure now in place, bulk of which were decreed or improved upon by the
OPA 90 and MARPOL standards.
This section distinguishes these different prevention measures (including
programs, regulations, and technologies) and gives and evaluation of the
advantages and deficits of each, and the overall effectiveness in reducing oil spill
pollution risks by source category. This assessment is basically qualitative and is
in light of information acquired from a review of the substantial literature compiled
in technical papers, reports and Web pages, as well as the various Proceedings
of the Biennial International Oil Spill Conference and other workshops and
conferences.
4.3.1 UK Oil spill prevention policy
Prevention policies are a key driver to best practice implementation within the

41
National UK boundaries. One example governing the UK waters is the Merchant
Shipping (Prevention of oil pollution) Regulation 1996 evolved from the IMOs
Marine pollution (MARPOL) 73/78 see (IMO, 2002). Firstly, this framework
employs safety standards to protect human life as-well as the environment.
Furthermore, this standard has embodied in it laws that addresses critical factors
like vessel design, construction, and operating and emergency procedures.
Secondly, Vessel Crew Licensing, Certification, Documentation and Training
Requirements is also important factors addressed. The results within this report
would suggest that such standards are the objective reasons behind the low risk
scores attributed to this location.
4.3.1.1 Tanker Designs and Construction
Design and construction play important roles within the safety context in relation
to prevention of vessel susceptibility to oil spills. Constraints such as the double
hull and redundant steering requirements are cited as ways to reduce severity
and incidence see (Ministry of Environment, 2013). (Brown & Savage, 1996)
Investigated the benefits of this technological advance and found an oil spill
reduction rate of 23% in US waters and 14% globally. In conclusion the strict
enforcement environment of such design parameters also play a role in reducing
impact susceptibility.
In line with the MARPOL 73/78 standards, the (UK Merchant Shipping Act , 1996),
prohibits the operations of single hull tank vessels on UK waters. Although, the
double bottom and double side tankers are allowed to operate up until
2015(depending on their ages), after when they are to be completely phased out.
Furthermore, all newly constructed crude oil tankers, are expected to incorporate
the double hull designs.
4.3.1.2 Training and Licencing of Vessel Crews
Training, certification and licencing of vessel crews significantly influences the
rate of oil spill occurrence during marine transport operations. According to
(Environmental Research Consulting, 2001)’s investigations, about 80% of all
marine accidents, bulk of which proceeds into oil pollution, emanates from human

42
error. This makes stricter criteria for licencing and adequate training, a key
component of operating standards towards effective oil spill prevention (Kloff &
Wicks, 2004).
The Basic international qualifications for masters, officers, and watch-keeping
personnel on merchant ships, was introduced during IMO's International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping for
Seafarers (STCW) in 1978. Further amendments in 1995 (which came into force,
1997), lead to the enactment of the following provisions (Environmental Research
Consulting, 2001):
 Communication of information to IMO to tolerate mutual oversight,
company obligations, watch-keeping plans, and obligations of all parties
to guarantee that seafarers meet target standards of competence under
Port State Control Programs;
 Require applicants for certificates (licenses and merchant mariner
document endorsements) to build up competence through both subject-
area examinations and practical demonstrations of skills; and
 Requires all training appraisals and certification exercises to be checked
by a Quality Standards System (QSS).

43
4.3.1.3 Mandatory Use of Escort Tugs and Towing Vessels
Spill prevention can be improved by assigning a few escort vessels to accompany
certain ships while navigating high-risk areas. Escort vessels (Figure 4.2) are
usually deployed alongside, or ahead of the larger ship, on the lookout for
navigational hazard. Additionally, the tug provides instance assistance in event
of steering failure or navigation errors, in order to prevent oil spills (Environmental
Research Consulting, 2001). However, despite its benefits, escort tugs
represents additional vessel with its own inherent safety problems, particularly
due to its close proximity to the tanker while moving (Nuka Research & Planning
Group, LLC., 2013).
Figure 4.2 Tanker being accompanied by Two Escort Tugs- “Source: (Nuka Research & Planning Group, LLC., 2013)
Furthermore, escort vessels provides emergency towing resources (Figure 4.3)
in event of difficulty in movements due grounding. However, when a vessel
navigates without the assistance of an escort vessel, IMO regulations demands
an immediate deployment of an emergency towing system (Nuka Research &
Planning Group, LLC., 2013).

44
Figure 4.3 An Emergency Towing System being Delivered via a Helicopter- “Source: (Nuka Research & Planning
Group, LLC., 2013)”
4.3.1.4 Vessel traffic Management
Analysis of momentous, historic, and projected vessel traffic sequence can
emphasise regions which requires supplementary safety precautions to offset
increased risks. Such measures can involve active vessel traffic management
through mandated or voluntary routing or a traffic separation scheme.
In effect, the IMO requires the installation of an Automated Identification System
(AIS) (Figure 4.3) on all large vessels. This ensures adequate real-time
monitoring and recording of route, speed, and other information for subsequent
analysis. Consequently, the AIS helps in identifying vessels locations, in order to
determine unsafe movements, for subsequent enforcement of mandatory vessel
routing. Additionally the AIS can be used to alert a vessel of any impending
danger of a collision, allision or grounding.

45
Figure 4.4 A Typical Example of an Automated Identification System- “Source: (Nuka Research & Planning Group,
LLC., 2013))
4.3.1.5 Oil filtering equipment and oil discharge monitoring and control
system
During routine activities, certain tankers are permitted to release a minimal
amount of oil (oil content of less than 100ppm) contained in ballast water and tank
washings into the sea. According to the (UK Merchant Shipping Act , 1996), an
oil tanker to which this standards applies is restricted from discharging oil or oily
mixture (with the exception of those for which provision permits). Additionally, the
regulation requires every ship of 400 GT or more, however less 10,000 GT to be
equipped with oil separating devices, to reduce the composition of oil in water
intended for release. However, the regulation does not apply to release which
takes place less than 50 miles landward of the line which serves as the baseline
for measuring the breadth of the regional waters of the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, the regulation also tankers to be equipped with an alarm device and
the means for automatically stopping the discharge of oily mixture when the oil
content in the effluent exceeds 15 ppm.
5 Conclusion
Long-term ocean management is a major priority, of which increased safety
management of maritime transportation activities undoubtedly takes precedence.

46
During the last three and a half decades, the trends have seen a sharp decrease
in figures associated with tonnage and accidents related to oil spills offshore.
From the millennium, Europe saw a steady decrease and then constant
distribution up to the next decade after. However, UK region was identified as
having the smallest risk associated with it. Lessons learnt and influence from this
region would go some way to implementing measures used to achieve a low risk
rating and serve as a benchmark when conducting a risk assessment. Such
measure can be expected if employed by high spill regions to become a reality in
the immediate interim and have positive effects. Moreover, safety regulations will
likely play a crucial role, in making adequate technical means centrally available.
The development of emergency plans locally is suggested to be a requirement
with clear recommendations and guidance on the methods to tackle damaged
tankers. Furthermore, the criteria for implementation of emergency capacity and
ports of refuge should be developed based on high risk spill regions.

47
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. M., Mayes , M. & LaBelle, R., 2012. Update of Occurrence Rates
for Offshore Oil Spills, Virginia: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
European Parliament, 2011. THE EFFECTS OF OIL COMPANIES’ ACTIVITIES
ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN Sub Saharn
Africa, s.l.: European Parliament.
Amini, A., 2007. Contractile Floating Barriers for Confinement and Recuperation
of Oil Slicks, LAUSANNE: ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FÉDÉRALE DE
LAUSANNE.
Beukes, T. J. E., 2012. A Critical Analysis Of The Bp Oil Spill Response And
Preparedness Plan For The Deep Horizon – Why Did It Fail?, Dundee: CEPMLP,
University of Dundee,.
Brown, R. s. & Savage, I., 1996. The economics of double hulled tankers.
maritime polution management, 25(2), pp. 167-175.
Burgherr, P., 2007. In-depth Analysis of Accidental Oil Spills from Tankers in The
Context of Global Spill Trends from All Sources. Journal of Hazardous Materials
, 140 (1), p. 245–256.
Chen , B. et al., 2012. From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards Future
Strategies and a Decision Support Framework for Oil Spill Preparedness and
Response in Offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, Newfoundland and
Labrador: The Harris Centre, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Cheremisinoff, N. P. & Davletshin, A., 2011. Emergency Response Management
of Offshore Oil Spills. 1st ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons and Scrivener
Publishing.
Chukwu, U. A., 2007. Improved management approach to oil spill response of the
gas-to-liquid project fuels, Potchefstroom: North West University.

48
Environmental Research Consulting, 2001. Risk Assessment for the Coast
Guard’s Oil Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program (OSPPR),
Washington: US Coast Guard.
Etkin, D. S., 2004. MODELING OIL SPILL RESPONSE AND DAMAGE COSTS,
New York: Environmental Research Consulting.
Eykelbosh, A., 2014. Short- and long-term health impacts of marine and terrestrial
oil spills, British Columbia : University of British Columbia .
Ferentinos , J., 2013. Global Offshore Oil and Gas Outlook, London: Infield
Systems Limited .
Fingas , M., 2002. A Review of Literature Related to Oil Spill Dispersantsn
Especially Relevant to Alaska, Alaska: Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’
Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) .
Fingas, M., 2011. Oil Spill Science and Technology - Prevention, Response, and
Cleanup. Oxford: Gulf Professional Publishing.
IMO, 1997. IMO workshop Material on Implementation of the Re- vised S1C
Convention , s.l.: s.n.
IMO, 2002. MARPOL 73/38, s.l.: IMO.
IPIECA, 2005. Action Against Oil Polution, London: IPIECA.
Kanjilal, B., 2015. Enhanced Marine Oil Spill Response Regime for Southern
British Columbia, Canada. Aquatic Procedia, 3(1st), p. 74 – 84.
Kloff , S. & Wicks, C., 2004. Environmental management of offshore oil
development and maritime oil transport, Gland, Vaud: IUCN Commission on
Environmental, Economic and Social Policy).
Kloff , S. & Wicks, C., 2004. Environmental management of offshore oil
development and maritime oil transport, Banc d'Arguin: IUCN Commission on
Environmental, Economic and Social Policy.

49
Marine Mammal Commision, 2010-2011. MARINE MAMMALS AND OCEAN
ENERGY, s.l.: Marine Mammal Commision.
Ministry of Environment, 2013. West coast spill response study, Alaska: s.n.
Nichols , M. & Kildow, J. T., 2014. The Political Economy of Oil Spill Damage
Assessment: NRDA and Deepwater Horizon , Monterey: The Center for the Blue
Economy, The Monterey Institute of International Studies.
Noussia, K., 2010. Environmental Pollution Liability and Insurance Law
Ramifications in Light of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Hamburg: International
Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs (“IMPRS”).
Nuka Research & Planning Group, LLC., 2013. WEST COAST SPILL
RESPONSE STUDY, VOLUME 3: World-Class Spill Prevention, Preparedness,
Response & Recovery System, British Columbia: British Columbia Ministry of
Environment.
Oceana, 2003. he Dumping of Hydrocarbons from Ships Into the Seas and
Oceans of Europe - The Other Side of Oil Slicks, s.l.: Oceana.
OGP, 2013. Environmental Performance ndicator, 2012 data, International Oil
and Gas Producers: United Kingdom.
Olawuyi, D. S., 2012. Legal and Sustainable Development Impacts of Major Oil
Spills. The Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(1 ), pp. 1-15.
Reynaud, C., 2009. The Components of Maritime Transport in the Mediterranean,
Paris: Economy and Territory.
Rochette , J., Wemaëre, M., Chabason, L. & Callet , S., 2014. Seeing beyond the
horizon for deepwater oil and gas: strengthening the international regulation of
offshore exploration and exploitation, Paris: Institut du développement durable et
des relations internationales .
Sandrea , I. & Sandrea , R., 2007. Global offshore oil: geological setting of
producing provinces, E&P trends, URR, and medium term supply outlook,
Oklahoma: Oil and Gas Journal.

50
Scarlett, L., Linkov, I. & Kousky, C., 2011. Risk Management Practices: Cross-
Agency Comparisons with Minerals Management Service, Washington:
Resources for the Future..
Stewart , T. R. & Leschine, T. M., 1986. Judgment and Analysis in Oil Spill Risk
Assessment. Risk Anulvsis, 6(3), pp. 305-315.
UK Merchant Shipping Act , 1996. The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil
Pollution) Regulations , London: The Secretary of State for Transport.
Vieites , D. R. et al., 2004. European Atlantic: the hottest oil spill hotspot
worldwide. Naturwissenschaften, p. 535–538.
Vinnem , J. E., 1999. Offshore Risk Assessment - Principles, Modelling and
Applications of QRA Studies. 1st ed. Trondheim: Springer Science.
Vinnem, J.-E., 2014. Offshore Risk Assessment vol 2.: Principles, Modelling and
Applications of QRA Studies. 3rd ed. London: Springer Science.
Wilson, R. D. et al., 1974. Natural Marine Oil Seepage. Science, p. 857.

51
APPENDICES
Appendix A Major Oil Spill Incidences
Table A-1 Biggest Oil Spills in History – Sources: “(NOAA/ Hazardous Material Response and Assessments Division,
1992), (Al-Majed, et al., 2013) and (Moss, 2010)”
Incidence Location Source Cause
Amount
Spilled
(million
Barrels) Description of Spill Event
Gulf War
spill
(19/01/199
1)
Arabian
Gulf/Kuw
ait Tanker
War-
Vandalism
or
terrorism 9
Amid the Gulf War, Iraqi troops endeavored to
restrain American soldiers from landing by opening
valves at an offshore oil terminal and dumping oil
from tankers.
Gulf oil
spill-
Macondo
(22/04/201
0)
Gulf of
Mexico
Platfor
m
Blowout-
Equipment
failure,
Human
errors and
negligence 4.9
Started with a blowout of an oil well a mile beneath
the surface of the Gulf. The blowout lead to an
explotion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig, killing
eleven people.
Ixtoc 1 Oil
Spill
(03/06/197
9)
Bay of
Campeche
off Ciudad
del
Carmen,
Mexico
Platfor
m
Blowout-
Operationa
l errors 3.5
Blowout occurred while drilling was in progress, the
oil ignited, leading to the disintegration of the
drilling rig.
Atlantic
Empress Oil
Spill
(19/07/197
9)
Off the
coast of
Trinidad
and
Tobago Tanker
Weather-
related
events/
accidental
damage 2.1
The Greek oil tanker got arrested in a tropical storm
off the shorelines of Trinidad and Tobago, thereby
colliding with the Aegean Captain. This lead to
uninterrupted loss of oil, which kept on spilling into
the sea while the vessel is being towed.
Kolva River
Oil Spill
(06/08/198
3)
Kolva
River,
Russia Pipeline
Human
errors and
negligence
/
Equipment
failure 2
This enormous spillage was initiated by an
inadequately maintained pipeline. For a period of 8
months, the pipe leakage was contained by a dike,
until a abrupt frosty climate brought about the
collapse of the dike.
Nowruz Oil
Field Spill
(10/02/198
3)
Persian
Gulf, Iran
Tanker/
Platfor
m
Accidental
damage-
collision 1.9
The spillage was the consequence of a tanker crash
with an oil platform
Castillo de
Bellver Oil
Spill
(06/08/198
3)
Saldanha
Bay,
South
Africa Tanker
Accidental
damage 1.88
The Castillo de Bellver burst into flames around 70
miles north west of Cape Town, and meanders in the
unrestricted water until it broke in two 25 miles off
the coast
Amoco
Cadiz
(03/16/78)
Brittany,
France Tanker
Accidental
damage 1.6
The huge Amoco Cadiz was gotten in a winter storm
that harmed the ship’s rudder. The tanker extended
an emergency call, although a lot of the ships
replied, they rendered very little assistance in
preventing the ship from grounding .
ABT
Summer Oil
Spill
(28/05/199
1)
About 700
nautical
miles off
the coast
of Angola Ship
Accidental
damage 1.2-1.9
An explotion off the coast of Angola, releasing an
enormous quantity of crude oil into the sea. This led
to the death of 5 of the total number of 32 crew
members.
M/T Haven
Tanker Oil
Spill
(11/04/199
1)
Genoa,
Italy Tanker
Accidental
damage 1.1
The tanker Haven was engulfed with fire while
anchored 7 miles off of Genoa, Italy. Following
several explosions, the Haven broken into parts.
Sea Star
(12/19/72)
Gulf of
Oman Tanker
Accidental
damage-
collision 0.937
The collission of the Sea Star and the Horta Barbosa,
causing both vessels to catch fire, which lead to its
abandonment by their crews. The Horta Barbosa fire
was controlled within the first day, while The Sea
Star drifted SSE, releasing oil from a forty-foot huge
hole on its side.
Torrey
Canyon
(18/03/196
7)
Lands
End,
England Tanker
Human
errors and
negligence 0.86
The T/V Torrey Canyon was grounded on Pollard
Rock on Seven Stones Reef off Lands End in England
due to the master's negligence

52
Appendix B Oil Spill and Trade Movement Data
Table B-1 Annual Number of Oil Spills >700Tonnes for 1980-2004 – "Courtesy: ITOPF"
YEAR
1980 13.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 -
1981 7.00 - 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 -
1982 4.00 - - - 2.00 2.00 -
1983 13.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 1.00 3.00 1.00
1984 8.00 - - 3.00 - 4.00 1.00
1985 8.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
1986 7.00 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
1987 11.00 - - 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
1988 10.00 - - 3.00 1.00 5.00 1.00
1989 13.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 -
TOTAL 94.00 4.00 10.00 25.00 15.00 34.00 7.00
AVERAGE 9.40 0.40 1.00 2.50 1.50 3.40 0.70
1990 14.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 1.00
1991 7.00 - 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 -
1992 10.00 - 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00
1993 11.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 -
1994 9.00 - 1.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 -
1995 3.00 - - 3.00 - - -
1996 3.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
1997 10.00 - - 6.00 2.00 - 2.00
1998 5.00 - - 4.00 - - 1.00
1999 5.00 - - 2.00 1.00 - 1.00
TOTAL 77.00 3.00 6.00 32.00 18.00 12.00 6.00
AVERAGE 7.70 0.30 0.60 3.20 1.80 1.20 0.60
2000 4.00 - - 2.00 - 1.00 1.00
2001 3.00 - - 2.00 1.00 - -
2002 3.00 - - 2.00 1.00 - -
2003 4.00 - - 3.00 - 1.00 -
2004 5.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00
2005 4.00 - 1.00 2.00 - 1.00 -
2006 5.00 - 2.00 1.00 1.00 - -
2007 3.00 - - 3.00 - - -
2008 1.00 - - - - 1.00 -
2009 2.00 - 1.00 1.00 - - -
TOTAL 34.00 - 6.00 17.00 3.00 5.00 2.00
AVERAGE 3.40 - 0.60 1.70 0.30 0.50 0.20
2010 4.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
2011 1.00 - - - 1.00 - -
2012 - - - - - - -
2013 3.00 - - 3.00 - - -
2014 1.00 - - 1.00 - - -
TOTAL 9.00 - 1.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 -
AVERAGE 1.80 - 0.20 1.00 0.40 0.20 -
GRAND TOTAL 214.00 7.00 23.00 79.00 38.00 52.00 15.00
AVERAGE 6.11 0.20 0.66 2.26 1.09 1.49 0.43
SOUTH AMERICA
NUMBER OF SPILLS (N)
UK AFRICA ASIA EUROPE NORTH AMERICAGLOBAL

53
Table B-2 Oil Trade Movement 1980-2014 - Courtesy: "BP and HSE UK"
YEARLOCATION GLOBAL UK AFRICA ASIA EUROPE N.AMERICA S.AMERICA
1980 1.61 0.04 0.26 0.98 0.10 0.05 0.15
1981 1.45 0.05 0.19 0.83 0.11 0.05 0.16
1982 1.29 0.06 0.18 0.68 0.11 0.06 0.13
1983 1.23 0.07 0.18 0.61 0.13 0.06 0.12
1984 1.25 0.08 0.20 0.60 0.13 0.07 0.12
1985 1.22 0.08 0.21 0.58 0.13 0.07 0.10
1986 1.33 0.09 0.22 0.66 0.14 0.07 0.11
1987 1.24 0.08 0.22 0.62 0.13 0.07 0.08
1988 1.40 0.07 0.23 0.69 0.17 0.09 0.09
1989 1.53 0.05 0.24 0.79 0.16 0.09 0.11
TOTAL 13.56 0.68 2.13 7.03 1.31 0.69 1.17
AVERAGE 1.36 0.07 0.21 0.70 0.13 0.07 0.12
1990 1.57 0.06 0.24 0.82 0.13 0.09 0.12
1991 1.61 0.06 0.26 0.80 0.09 0.11 0.10
1992 1.66 0.06 0.28 0.89 0.11 0.10 0.12
1993 1.78 0.06 0.27 0.99 0.19 0.11 0.12
1994 1.83 0.08 0.27 0.99 0.21 0.11 0.13
1995 1.86 0.08 0.27 1.00 0.21 0.12 0.14
1996 1.96 0.08 0.28 1.05 0.24 0.12 0.15
1997 2.04 0.08 0.29 1.10 0.24 0.12 0.16
1998 2.05 0.08 0.29 1.11 0.25 0.13 0.16
1999 2.08 0.09 0.29 1.09 0.29 0.12 0.16
TOTAL 18.45 0.74 2.73 9.84 1.97 1.14 1.36
AVERAGE 1.84 0.07 0.27 0.98 0.20 0.11 0.14
2000 2.16 0.09 0.30 1.13 0.31 0.13 0.15
2001 2.24 0.09 0.29 1.15 0.33 0.14 0.16
2002 2.23 0.09 0.29 1.09 0.38 0.14 0.15
2003 2.33 0.07 0.32 1.14 0.40 0.15 0.15
2004 2.45 0.06 0.35 1.19 0.42 0.16 0.16
2005 2.56 0.05 0.37 1.20 0.46 0.17 0.18
2006 2.62 0.05 0.40 1.22 0.47 0.18 0.18
2007 2.77 0.05 0.41 1.28 0.53 0.19 0.18
2008 2.72 0.05 0.39 1.27 0.51 0.22 0.18
2009 2.61 0.05 0.36 1.20 0.50 0.22 0.19
TOTAL 24.70 0.66 3.47 11.88 4.31 1.70 1.67
AVERAGE 2.47 0.07 0.35 1.19 0.43 0.17 0.17
2010 2.67 0.04 0.37 1.25 0.52 0.24 0.18
2011 2.70 0.03 0.33 1.29 0.53 0.26 0.19
2012 2.73 0.03 0.36 1.29 0.52 0.29 0.19
2013 2.81 0.03 0.33 1.29 0.57 0.34 0.19
2014 2.83 0.03 0.31 1.30 0.56 0.38 0.20
TOTAL 13.74 0.17 1.69 6.42 2.70 1.51 0.94
AVERAGE 2.75 0.03 0.34 1.28 0.54 0.30 0.19
GRANDTOTAL 70.45 2.25 10.03 35.17 10.28 5.04 5.14
AVERAGE 2.01 0.06 0.29 1.00 0.29 0.14 0.15
CRUDE OIL TRADE MOVEMENT (BTONNES)

54
Appendix C Basic Oil Spill Cost Estimation Model (BOSCEM) Estimation
Parameters
Table C-1 Per-Gallon Oil Spill Response Costs Applied- Source:” (Etkin, 2004)”
Table C-2 Socioeconomic Base Per-Gallon Costs- Source:” (Etkin, 2004)”

55
Table C-3 Environmental Base Per-Gallon Costs – Source:” (Etkin, 2004)”
Table C-4 Response Cost Modifiers for Location Medium Type Categories - Source: “ (Etkin, 2004)”
Table C-5 Socioeconomic & Cultural Value Rankings - Source:” (Etkin, 2004)”

56
Table C-6 Response Method And Effectiveness Adjustment Factors - Source: “ (Etkin, 2004)”
Table C-7 Freshwater Vulnerability Categories - Source: “ (Etkin, 2004)”
Table C-8 Habitat and Wildlife Sensitivity Categories - Source: “ (Etkin, 2004)”

Moshood abayomi yahaya thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Moshood abayomi yahaya thesis

Similar to Moshood abayomi yahaya thesis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Moshood abayomi yahaya thesis