View
29
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Elimination Units for Marine Oil Pollution. Application of the EU-MOP system. Madrid , Jan 24, 2008. Overview. EU-MOP Unit Types EU-MOP Operational Capabilities EU-MOP Response Rationale Case-studies: Application of EU-MOP in European waters - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Madrid, Jan 24, 2008
Elimination Units for Marine Oil Pollution
Application of the EU-MOP system
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
• EU-MOP Unit Types
• EU-MOP Operational Capabilities
• EU-MOP Response Rationale
• Case-studies: Application of EU-MOP in European waters
• Overall judgment of EU-MOP oil-spill cleaning potential
Overview
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
EU-MOP Unit Types
L-size Catamaran
L-size MonoCat
Length o.a. 3.20 m
Breadth o.a. 2.30 m
Depth 1.45 m
Oil tank capacity 2.0 m3
Skimmer type Lamor LBC 2C-2700
Speed, max 4.0 kts
Speed, recovery mode 1.0 knot
Length o.a. 3.50 m
Breadth o.a. 2.30 m
Depth 1.29 m
Oil tank capacity 2.0 m3
Skimmer type Lamor Bow Collector 2 C2700
Speed, max 4.0 kts
Speed, recovery mode 1.0 knot
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
EU-MOP Unit Types
M-size Catamaran
Length o.a. 3.00 m
Breadth o.a. 1.88 m
Depth 1.25 m
Oil tank capacity 1.4 m3
Skimmer type Lamor LHS 2CP
Speed, max 4.0 kts
Speed, recovery mode 0.7 knot
Length o.a. 2.40 m
Breadth o.a. 1.88 m
Depth 1.20 m
Oil tank capacity 1.25 m3
Skimmer type Lamor Bow Collector LHS 2CP
Speed, max 3.0 kts
Speed, recovery mode 0.7 knot
M-size MonoCat
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
EU-MOP Unit Types
S-size
Length o.a. 1.20 m
Breadth o.a. 1.10 m
Depth 0.90 m
Oil tank capacity 0.20 m3
Skimmer type Ro Clean – DBD 5
Speed, max 1.0 kts
Speed, recovery mode 0.5 knot
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
•L-size and M-size
Up to Sea State 4
e.g. open ocean / enclosed sea
•S-size
(mainly) Sea State 1
e.g. shallow water / port areas
EU-MOP Operational Capabilities
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
EU-MOP Operational Capabilities
Possible Locations for EU-MOP Solution
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
EU-MOP Response Rationale
Tactical Approach
Strategic Approach
Spill Fate
Spill Trajectory
Operational / Robotics
Effectiveness of Oil
Confrontation Equipment
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
EU-MOP Response Rationale
Strategic Level
?
N
???
?
?Type 1 = ?Type 2 = ?Type 3 = ?Type 4 = ?
Type 1 = ?Type 2 = ?Type 3 = ?Type 4 = ? Type 1 = ?
Type 2 = ?Type 3 = ?Type 4 = ?
Type 1 = ?Type 2 = ?Type 3 = ?Type 4 = ?
Type 1 = ?Type 2 = ?Type 3 = ?Type 4 = ?
Type 1 = ?Type 2 = ?Type 3 = ?Type 4 = ?
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
N
Tactical Level
EU-MOP Response Rationale
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
EU-MOP Response Rationale
Detection of accident / oil spill
Launch of oil spill response with EU-
MOPs
Preparation of MS for transport to operation ares
Arrival of MS at operation area /
Unloading
Transit of MS to operation area
Initial phase before actual oil recovery
operation
Transit of the swarm to the oil slick
Oil recovery operation
return of single unit: get additional power
End of EU-MOP spill response
End of EU-MOP spill response
return of single unit: empty oil storage
Transit of MS to port
Operational Level
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Case-studies: Application in European waters
Case-studies of real spill incidents and the application of EU-MOP on:
•Strategic Level•Tactical Level •Operational Level
have been analysed for real spill incidents in:
•Spanish waters (Sierra Nava incident)•Greek waters (Nordland incident)•UK waters (Tenby Harbor incident)
Next, the Spanish and Greek case-studiesare briefly presented
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Strategic Level Analysis: South of Spain (broader risk area)
The Spanish Case: Sierra Nava Spill
3 candidate 3 candidate facility sitesfacility sites
4 potential 4 potential spill sitesspill sites
11
2233
11 22
3344
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Strategic Level Analysis: Probabilistic Data (abstract)
The Spanish Case: Sierra Nava Spill
Expon(110,20) Shift=-0,72192
Values x 10^-2
Values in Thousands
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
< >99,3%0,000 1,600
Spill size in ‘000s tonnes
Proba- bility
spill site 1
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
Group 1 & 2 Group 3 Group 4
oil type
pro
bab
ilit
y
spill site 1
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
calm moderate rough
weather category
pro
bab
ilit
y
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Strategic Level Analysis:
Simulation Results
The Spanish Case: Sierra Nava Spill
Type 2:
14 units
Type 4:
2 units
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Strategic Level Analysis:
Simulation Results*
*Assumption: the weathering of oil is not taken into account
% of oil collected
84%
96%99% 100%
60%
80%
100%
Spill site 1 Spill site 2 Spill site 3 Spill site 4
spill site where incidents occured
The Spanish Case: Sierra Nava Spill
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Tactical Level Analysis: 350 tonnes spill (Sierra Nava)
Scenario based on actual response
The Spanish Case: Sierra Nava Spill
Spill Spill sitesite
Actual response:
1 skimmer and 1 tug boat
Removed 35 tonnes in 5 days
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Tactical Level Analysis: 350 tonnes spill (Sierra Nava)
Scenario based on actual response (1 facility) and strategic simulation (14 M-size Cat units)
The Spanish Case: Sierra Nava Spill
Spill Spill sitesite
Type 2:
14 units
Storage of 14 “Type 2” (M-size Cat) units in Algeciras
Weathering of oil taken into account
0255075
100125150175200225250275300325
0
2,5 5
7,5
10
12,5 15
17,5 20 22 24 26
28,5 31
33,5 36
38,5 41
43,5 46 48
TIME (h)
Q (
ton
ne
s)
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Tactical Level Analysis: 350 tonnes spill (Sierra Nava)
Simulation results
The Spanish Case: Sierra Nava Spill
Spill Spill sitesite
Type 2:
14 units
DAY1
7 “Type 2” (M-size Cat) units dispatched to spill site
120 tonnes removed
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
The Spanish Case: Sierra Nava Spill
Spill Spill sitesite
Type 2:
7 units
DAY2
5 “Type 2” (M-size Cat) already at the spill site
remove 114 tonnes
Tactical Level Analysis: 350 tonnes spill (Sierra Nava)
Simulation results
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Tactical Level Analysis: 350 tonnes spill (Sierra Nava)
Simulation results: Overall response
The Spanish Case: Sierra Nava Spill
collected by EU-MOP (234t)
retained on beach (60t)
weathering (56t)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
350 tonnes
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Strategic Level Analysis: South of Peloponnesus (broader risk area)
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
2
3
4
2 3 1
1
5
5 candidate facility 5 candidate facility sitessites
4 potential spill 4 potential spill sitessites
4
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
2
3
4
2 3 1
1
5
5 candidate facility 5 candidate facility sitessites
4 potential spill 4 potential spill sitessites
4
Strategic Level Analysis: Simulation Results
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
Type 2:
8 units
Type 4:
2 units
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
Strategic Level Analysis: Simulation Results*
% of oil collected
97%89%
62%
95%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Spill site 1 Spill site 2 Spill site 3 Spill site 4
spill site where incidents occured
*Assumption: the weathering of oil is not taken into account
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Tactical Level Analysis: 110 tonnes spill (Nordland) Scenario 1 (based on strategic)
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
4
Spill Site
1
4
Spill Site
1
Type 4:
2 units
Type 2:
8 units
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
4
Spill Site
1
4
Spill Site
1
Type 4:
2 units
Type 2:
8 units
Tactical Level Analysis: 110 tonnes spill (Nordland) Scenario 1 Simulation Results
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
7 “Type 2” (M-size Cat) units dispatched to spill site
Full oil recovery within 25 hours
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Tactical Level Analysis: 110 tonnes spill (Nordland) Scenario 2 (comparison with actual response)
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
Spill Site
1
Actual response:
1 Aktaia vessel and 1 weir skimmer dispatched from Piraeus
Removed 14 tonnes in 8 days
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Tactical Level Analysis: 110 tonnes spill (Nordland) Scenario 2 (comparison with actual response)
Spill Site
1
Type 2:
12 units
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
Scenario 2:
Storage of 12 “Type 2” (M-size Cat) units in Piraeus
Weathering of oil taken into account
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
TIME (hrs)
V (
ton
ne
s)
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Tactical Level Analysis: 110 tonnes spill (Nordland) Scenario 2: Simulation Results
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
Spill Site
1
Type 2:
12 units
5 “Type 2” (M-size Cat) units dispatched to spill site
106 tonnes removed within 35 hours
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Tactical Level Analysis: Results assessment (of a number of scenarios)
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
*In scenario 4, the high figure is due to the fact that only a fraction of the spilled oil was collected because of imposed operational limitations
% deviation from the theoretically optimal solution
0%3%5%8%
10%13%15%18%20%23%25%28%30%33%35%
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Operational Level Analysis: swarms of 8 M-size or 8 L-size units considered
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
8 M EU-MOP units
Oil Fate model
8 L EU-MOP units
Response time (7 hrs)
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Operational Level Analysis: swarms of 8 M-size or 8 L-size units considered
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
Real case Nordland oil spill: continuous release
EU-MOP UNITS: M & L Size (Brush skimmer)
Effectiveness Criteria Oil spill 110 tonnes Type of oil Viscosity Max. viscosity for skimmer operation Weather
Persistent oil (Heavy Fuel Oil or Crude oil 180 cSt >100,000 cSt Hs = 0.3-0.8m (5-10 knots)
Swarm size
Criteria and parameters Specification
8 M
8 L Real oil
spill Volume of oil spill (m3) 110 m3 110 110 110 Volume of oil recovered at sea (m3) >14 tonnes
27.9
31.5
14 approx
Percentage of oil volume recovered at sea >10%
25.4
28.6
12.31
Volume of oil on shoreline < 83 m3 80.2 76.7 83 approx Length of shoreline affected < 3 km - - 3km Time to collect oil (hours) < 24 hours 7.0 7.2 24 Volume of oil recovered at sea (m3) /Time to collect oil (hours) >0.56
4.0
4.4
0.56 Average oil recovery rate per unit (m3/hour)
0.35 m3/hour M 0.50 m3/hour L
0.50 0.55
0.56
Oil recovery rate per swarm (m3/h)
3.99
4.4
Max emulsion viscosity operating limit (cSt) < 100k cSt
17,900
17,900
17,900
Oil/water ratio in collected quantities High
High
High
High
Debris handling Good Good Good Good
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Case-study: Application in Greek waters
Greek waters scenario (South of Peloponnesus) considering spill incidents similar to Nordland
Average amount of oil collected by EU-MOPs: 20% of total oil spilled
DISCOUNTED PRESENT VALUE (EURO) 320.000 660.000(Discounted net benefit over a time horizon of 10 years)
PAYBACK PERIOD (YEARS) 6,8 4,3
INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN (%) 15,8% 31,8%
*i.e. 1 spill every 2 years
DISCOUNTED PRESENT VALUE (EURO) -175.000 0(Discounted net benefit over a time horizon of 10 years)
PAYBACK PERIOD (YEARS) > 10 > 10
INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN (%) -10,5% 0,0%
*i.e. 1 spill every 4.6 years
Aktaia Vessel plus Weir Skimmer EU-MOP 12 M-SIZE CAT UNITSSpill frequency (spills/year) 0,5*
Spill frequency (spills/year) 0,216* Aktaia Vessel plus Weir Skimmer EU-MOP 12 M-SIZE CAT UNITS
© 2005 EU-MOP Consortium
EU-MOP is on the right track EU-MOP is on the right track and is a promising solution for and is a promising solution for the future of oil confrontationthe future of oil confrontation
Application of the EU-MOP system
Recommended