Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment (SIMA)...Why Net Environmental Benefit Analysis...

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


• Target larger/higher consequence oil spills

Target larger/higher consequence oil spills




• Facilitate transparency and stakeholder involvement

Facilitate transparency and stakeholder involvement





• Highlight industry consensus on methodology

Highlight industry consensus on methodology

• Facilitate transparency and stakeholder involvement




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

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




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




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

http://oilspillresponseproject.org/

Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment (SIMA)...Why Net Environmental Benefit Analysis...

Documents

Transcript of Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment (SIMA)...Why Net Environmental Benefit Analysis...