VTRA 2010 – SYNOPSIS OF HIGH SCENARIO COMPARISON …dorpjr/VTRA/PSP/CASES/VTRA 2010 Maste… · Accident Scenario’s Counting Drift Grounding Accident Scenario’s Counting Powered

GWU Personnel: Dr. J. Rene van Dorp

VCU Personnel: Dr. Jason R. W. Merrick

December, 2013

DEFINITION OF 15 WATERWAY ZONES

65

7

8

9

15

43

1

213

10

11

12

1. Buoy J2. ATBA3. WSJF4. ESJF5. Rosario6. Guemes7. Saddlebag8. Georgia Str.

9. Haro/Boun.10.PS North11.PS South12.Tacoma13.Sar/Skagit14.SJ Islands15.Islands Trt

VTRA 2010 Waterway Zones

14

VTRA 2010 – SYNOPSIS OF HIGH SCENARIO COMPARISON APPLIED TO CASE P: BASE CASE

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 1 of 24

FOCUS VESSELS TRAVEL THROUGH VTRA STUDY AREA

Maritime SystemTraffic SimulationWeather

Data

Traffic Data

Current Data

Weather Simulation

Traffic Arrivals

Simulation

1.

2.

Current Simulation

3.

TrafficRules

Required close cooperation with the USCG VTS and Puget SoundHarbor Safety Committee for data + validation

103

PerpendicularKinetic Energy

TangentialKinetic Energy

A SR 259 Collision Scenario

struck ship-velocity-displacement-hull type

collision-location-angle

striking ship-velocity-displacement-bow angle

Step 1Damage

calculation

89

Q30Situation 1 TANKER DESCRIPTION Situation 2

Strait of Juan de Fuca East Location -Inbound Direction -Laden Cargo -

1 Escort Escorts -Untethered Tethering -

INTERACTING VESSELShallow Draft Pass. Vessel Vessel Type -

Crossing the Bow Traffic Scenario -Less than 1 mile Traffic Proximity -

WATERWAY CONDITIONSMore than 0.5 mile Visibility Visibility Less than 0.5 mile Visibility

Along Vessel Wind Direction -Less than 10 knots Wind Speed -

Almost Slack Current -Along Vessel - Opposite Direction Current Direction -

More? : ____ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ____ : More?Situation 1 is worse <====================X====================> Situation 2 is worse

Conduct Expert Judgment Elicitations via Questionnaires

Example of potential experts: USCG VTS Operators, Puget Sound Pilots, Tanker Captains and First Mates, Tug Captains and First Mates, etc.

77

A B

C D

E F

Generating AccidentScenarios:

Counting CollisionAccident Scenario’s

Counting Drift Grounding AccidentScenario’s

Counting Powered Grounding AccidentScenario’s

SNAPSHOTS OF KEY VTRA MODEL COMPONENTS

We add vessel traffic to 2010 traffic model to mimin what-if scenarios and we compare them to the base case year.

Focus Vessels: Tanker, ATB, Chem. Carrier, Oil Barge, Bulk Carrier, Container Vessel and Other Cargo Vessels

We developed a vessel traffic movement modeled largely based on VTOSS 2010 data validated using AIS 2010 data. We consider the 2010 traffic model a base case year and denote it scenario P – BASE CASE.

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 2 of 24

P – BC & HIGH TANKERSBASE CASE 2010 TRAFFIC WITH

2010CHERRY POINT 329ANACORTES 242FERNDALE 115Total Change Tank FV

TANKER CALL NUMBER HIGH-LOW ANALYSIS FROM 1998-2012

+150-191118 - 1998 : 3 111 - 2007 : -+4

LOW - YEAR: - # HIGH - YEAR: + #193 - 1998 : -136 398 - 2007 : +69184 - 1998 : -58 319 - 2007 : +77

HIGH TANKER CASE – RIGHT COLUMN

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 3 of 24

HIGH CARGO FOCUS VESSELS – RIGHT COLUMN

2010Bouy J - Georgia Strait 1159Bouy J - Puget Sound 322Puget Sound - Georgia Strait 0Total Change Bulk FV

2010Bouy J - Georgia Strait 308Bouy J - Puget Sound 766Puget Sound - Georgia Strait 222Total Change Container FV

2010Bouy J - Georgia Strait 386Bouy J - Puget Sound 252Puget Sound - Georgia Strait 226Total Change Other Cargo FV

246 - 2009 : +20 260 - 2011 : +34

OTHER CARGO TRANSIT NUMBER HIGH-LOW ANALYSIS FROM 2008-2012LOW - YEAR: - # HIGH - YEAR: + #336 - 2009 : -50 421 - 2011 : +36

258 - 2011 : +36

223 - 2009 : -85 332 - 2011 : +25

280 - 2009 : +28 255 - 2011 : +3

BULK TRANSIT NUMBER HIGH-LOW ANALYSIS FROM 2008-2012LOW - YEAR: - # HIGH - YEAR: + #1095 - 2009 : -63 1268 - 2011 : +109

0 - 2009 : +0 0 - 2011 : +0

CONTAINER TRANSIT NUMBER HIGH-LOW ANALYSIS FROM 2008-2012LOW - YEAR: - # HIGH - YEAR: + #

344 - 2009 : 22 325 - 2011 : +3

812 - 2009 : +46 807 - 2011 : +41274 - 2009 : +52

-41 +112

-2

+13 +102

+73

P – BC & HIGH TANKER AND CARGO FVBASE CASE 2010 TRAFFIC WITH HIGH TANKERS AND

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 4 of 24

EXPOSURE DEFINITIONSVESSEL TIME EXPOSURE:

TOTAL AMOUNT OF ANNUAL TIME A FOCUS VESSEL IS MOVING THROUGH THE VTRA STUDY AREA

FUEL OIL TIME EXPOSURE:TOTAL AMOUNT OF ANNUAL TIME A CUBIC METER OF FOCUS

VESSEL FUEL OIL IS MOVING THROUGH THE VTRA STUDY AREA

CARGO OIL TIME EXPOSURE:TOTAL AMOUNT OF ANNUAL TIME A CUBIC METER OF FOCUS

VESSEL CARGO (CRUDE + PRODUCT) OIL IS MOVING THROUGH THE VTRA STUDY AREA

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 5 of 24

FOCUS VESSELS MOVE OIL: Crude, Product and Fuel

Assumption 1 : Tankers are classified as crude or product carriers by nameAssumption 2 : Chemical carriers transport product.Assumption 3 : Oil barges are assumed to transport product.Assumption 4 : All Focus Vessels fuel tanks are 50% fullAssumption 5 : US bound crude tankers are assumed fully laden as they arrive in

study area, drop of equal amounts at their stops and leave empty.Assumption 6 : Canadian bound crude tankers are assumed empty as they arrive

and fully laden as they depart.Assumption 7 : Product Tankers and ATB’s are assumed fully laden as

they depart study area, empty as they arrive.Assumption 8 : Chemical carriers are assumed fully laden as they arrive in

the study area, empty when they leave the study area.Assumption 9 : When ATB’s go back and forth between two destinations

within the study area they are assumed 50% fullAssumption 10: Oil barges are assumed fully laden as they travel through

study area.Assumption 11: Tank Focus Vessels not covered by 1-10 are assumed fully laden.

Disclaimer: No information is available on volume of oil or type of oil onboard a vessel and we have to rely on overarching assumptions regarding movement of amount and type of oil as focus vessels move through the studyarea.

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 6 of 24



December, 2013

VTRA 2010 – SYNOPSIS OF 3D SCENARIO COMPARISON


65

7

8

9

15

43

1

213

10

11

12




14

VESSEL TIME EXPOSUREBy What-if Focus Vessels and Base Case Focus Vessels

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 7 of 24

P: Base Case 3D Risk Profile All FV - Vessel Time Exposure: 100% of Base Case VTE

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1

VESSEL TRAFFIC RISK ASSESSMENT (VTRA) 2010

P: BC @ 100%

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 8 of 24


P: BC @ 100%

VESSEL TIME EXPOSURE-VTE

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 9 of 24

P: BC & HIGH TAN + CFV 3D Risk Profile What-If FV - Vessel Time Exp.: 6% of Base Case VTE

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1

P: BC & HIGH TAN + CFV 3D Risk Profile All FV - Vessel Time Exposure: 107% of Base Case VTE

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1

P: BC & HIGH TAN 3D Risk Profile What-If FV - Vessel Time Exp.: 2% of Base Case VTE

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1

P: BC & HIGH TAN 3D Risk Profile All FV - Vessel Time Exposure: 102% of Base Case VTE

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1


+2%from P

+6%from P

+2%from P

+7%from P

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 10 of 24

0%

2%

7%

-25% 0% 25

%

P - Base Case | 100%

P - BC & HIGH TAN | 102%

P - BC & HIGH TAN + CFV | 107%

BC % Change from Case P

Annual Vessel Time Exposure (WI + BC Vessels)

VTRA 2010 : VESSEL TIME EXPOSURE, POT. ACC. FREQ POT. OIL. LOSS COMPARISON ALL FOCUS VESSELS

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 11 of 24



December, 2013



65

7

8

9

15

43

1

213

10

11

12




14

POTENTIAL ACCIDENT FREQUENCY By What-if Focus Vessels and Base Case Focus Vessels

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 12 of 24

P: Base Case 3D Risk Profile All FV - Pot.Grou+Coll.Acc.Freq.: 100% of Base Case PCF

25-26 24-25

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1


P: BC @ 100%

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 13 of 24


P: BC @ 100%

POTENTIAL ACCIDENTFREQUENCY - PAF

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 14 of 24

P: BC & HIGH TAN + CFV 3D Risk Profile What If FV - Pot.Gr+Co.Acc.Freq.: 5% of Base Case PCF

25-26 24-25

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1

P: BC & HIGH TAN + CFV 3D Risk Profile All FV - Pot.Grou+Coll.Acc.Freq.: 104% of Base Case PCF

25-26 24-25

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1

P: BC & HIGH TAN 3D Risk Profile What If FV - Pot.Gr+Co.Acc.Freq.: 2% of Base Case PCF

25-26 24-25

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1

P: BC & HIGH TAN 3D Risk Profile All FV - Pot.Grou+Coll.Acc.Freq.: 103% of Base Case PCF

25-26 24-25

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1


+2%from P

+5%from P

+3%from P

+4%from P

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 15 of 24

0%

2%

7%

-25% 0% 25

%






0%

3%

4%

-25% 0% 25

%





Potential Accident (C+G) Frequency (WI + BC Vessels)


Draft - 12/12/2013 - 16 of 24



December, 2013



65

7

8

9

15

43

1

213

10

11

12




14

POTENTIAL OIL LOSS By What-if Focus Vessels and Base Case Focus Vessels

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 17 of 24

P: Base Case 3D Risk Profile All FV - Pot. Grou+Coll.Oil Loss: 100% of Base Case PCO

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1


P: BC @ 100%

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 18 of 24

POTENTIAL ACCIDENTOIL LOSS - POL


P: BC @ 100%

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 19 of 24

P: BC & HIGH TAN + CFV 3D Risk Profile All FV - Pot. Grou+Coll.Oil Loss: 108% of Base Case PCO

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1

P: BC & HIGH TAN 3D Risk Profile What If FV - Pot. Gr+Co.Oil Loss: 9% of Base Case PCO

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1

P: BC & HIGH TAN 3D Risk Profile All FV - Pot. Grou+Coll.Oil Loss: 109% of Base Case PCO

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1

P: BC & HIGH TAN + CFV 3D Risk Profile What If FV - Pot. Gr+Co.Oil Loss: 10% of Base Case PCO

23-24 22-23

21-22 20-21

19-20 18-19

17-18 16-17

15-16 14-15

13-14 12-13

11-12 10-11

9-10 8-9

7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5

3-4 2-3

1-2 0-1


+9%from P

+10%from P

+9%from P

+8%from P

Draft - 12/12/2013 - 20 of 24

0%

9%

8%

-25% 0% 25

%





Potential Acc. Oil (C + F) Loss (WI + BC Vessels)

0%

2%

7%

-25% 0% 25

%






0%

3%

4%

-25% 0% 25

%





Potential Accident (C+G) Frequency (WI + BC Vessels)


Draft - 12/12/2013 - 21 of 24


65

7

8

9

15

43

1

213

10

11

12




14


Draft - 12/12/2013 - 22 of 24

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

3.9%

4.8%

4.8%

9.8%

9.8%

10.0%

10.0%

13.4%

14.9%

17.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.4%

0.8%

4.3%

4.8%

5.1%

9.7%

11.6%

10.3%

9.6%

11.8%

16.6%

23.7%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

SJ Islands : 0.0% | x 0.94Sar/Skagit : 0.0% | x 0.97

ATBA : 0.0% | x 0.94Tac. South : 0.0% | x 0.99

Buoy J : +0.3% | x 1.47Georgia Str. : +0.4% | x 1.09Islands Trt : +0.0% | x 1.01

WSJF : +0.4% | x 1.07Haro/Boun. : -0.1% | x 0.99

ESJF : +1.7% | x 1.17PS North : +0.3% | x 1.03PS South : -0.4% | x 0.96

Saddlebag : -1.7% | x 0.88Rosario : +1.6% | x 1.11Guemes : +6.7% | x 1.39

% Base Case Oil (Coll.+Grou.) Loss (OL) - ALL_FV

% Base Case Oil (Coll. + Grou.) Loss - ALL_FV

P: BC & HIGH TANKERS : 109% ( +9.1% | x 1.09) P: Base Case : 100%

++9%

Waterway Zone:


P & HTDraft - 12/12/2013 - 23 of 24

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

3.9%

4.8%

4.8%

9.8%

9.8%

10.0%

10.0%

13.4%

14.9%

17.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.4%

0.9%

4.1%

4.9%

5.0%

10.4%

11.1%

10.5%

9.9%

12.6%

16.8%

21.2%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

SJ Islands : 0.0% | x 0.94Sar/Skagit : +0.0% | x 1.02

ATBA : 0.0% | x 0.88Tac. South : 0.0% | x 0.97

Buoy J : +0.3% | x 1.62Georgia Str. : +0.2% | x 1.04Islands Trt : +0.1% | x 1.03

WSJF : +0.3% | x 1.06Haro/Boun. : +0.5% | x 1.05

ESJF : +1.2% | x 1.12PS North : +0.5% | x 1.05PS South : -0.1% | x 0.99

Saddlebag : -0.8% | x 0.94Rosario : +1.9% | x 1.12Guemes : +4.2% | x 1.25

% Base Case Oil (Coll.+Grou.) Loss (OL) - ALL_FV

% Base Case Oil (Coll. + Grou.) Loss - ALL_FV

P: BC & HIGH TAN-CARGO FV : 108% ( +8.2% | x 1.08) P: Base Case : 100%

++8%

Waterway Zone:


P & HTCDraft - 12/12/2013 - 24 of 24

Documents

VTRA 2010 – SYNOPSIS OF HIGH SCENARIO COMPARISON …dorpjr/VTRA/PSP/CASES/VTRA 2010 Maste… · Accident Scenario’s Counting Drift Grounding Accident Scenario’s Counting Powered