RISK REDUCTION AND OIL SPILL RESPONSE - GREENLAND
Oil spill contingency study Greenland – Summary report
Defence Command Denmark
Report No.: 2015-0587, Rev. 2
Document No.: 1M3QVEF-166
Date: 2015-12-30
Project name:
Risk reduction and oil spill response - Greenland
DNV GL AS, DNV GL Oil & Gas
Report title:
Oil spill contingency study - Greenland –
BDL Environmental Risk
Summary report
Management
Customer:
Defence Command Denmark,
P.O.Box 300
Contact person:
Jens Peter Holst-Andersen
1322 Høvik
Date of issue:
2015-12-30
Norway
Project No.:
PP122671
Tel: +47 67 57 99 00
Organisation unit:
BDL Environmental Risk Management
NO 945 748 931 MVA
Report No.:
2015-0587, Rev. 2
Document No.:
1M3QVEF-166
Applicable contract(s) governing the provision of this Report:
Objective: Summary and key findings from the main report – Oil spill contingency study - Greenland.
Prepared by:
Verified by:
Approved by:
Camilla Anita Spansvoll
Consultant
Hans Petter Dahlslett
Principal Consultant
Odd Willy Brude
Business Development Leader
Anne Wenke
Senior Consultant
Harald Bjarne Tvedt
Principal Consultant
Knut Espen Solberg
Senior Consultant
Peter Nyegaard Hoffmann
Head of Section
Also in the DNV GL project team: Anders Rudberg, Gjermund Gravir and Henrik Eikeland.
© Cover picture: Morten Thrane Leth
Copyright © DNV GL 2014. All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any
form, or by any means, whether digitally or otherwise without the prior written consent of DNV GL. DNV GL and the Horizon Graphic
are trademarks of DNV GL AS. The content of this publication shall be kept confidential by the customer, unless otherwise agreed in
writing. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited.
DNV GL Distribution:
☐ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external)
Keywords:
[Keywords]
☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL
☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years
☒ No distribution (confidential)
☐ Secret
Rev. No. Date
Reason for Issue
Prepared by
1
2015-06-23
Revised after comments
Spansvoll
2
2015-12-30
Revised, additional comments
Spansvoll
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Verified by
Approved by
Page i
Table of contents
1
PROJECT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1
2
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1
Future oil spill strategies
3
2.2
Risk reducing measures
4
2.3
Shipping risk and iceberg probability
4
3
OIL SPILL RESPONSE TACTICS AND STRATEGIES– OVERVIEW ............................................. 5
4
RESPONSE GAP ANALYSIS - RGA ...................................................................................... 7
4.1
Methodology
7
4.2
Presentation of the results
9
4.3
Key findings of the RGA
4.4
Qualitative assessment of additional environmental parameters
5
RESPONSE CHALLENGE INDEX - RCI ............................................................................... 13
5.1
Methodology
13
5.2
Results
14
6
OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS - OSCA .................................................................... 15
6.1
Scenario and contingency set-up
15
6.2
Presentation of results
17
6.3
Key findings of the OSCA
18
7
RISK REDUCING MEASURES - RRM ................................................................................. 20
7.1
Methodology
20
7.2
Results
21
7.3
Key Findings
21
8
SHIPPING RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ICEBERGS ................................................................. 22
8.1
Methodology
22
8.2
Results - Areas of high risk
22
8.3
Key findings
23
9
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 24
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
9
12
Page ii
1
PROJECT SUMMARY
There has been an increasing level of activity in and around Greenland, especially in the last decade.
This is expected to continue in the coming years and activities such as cruise tourism, oil exploration and
extraction and the general amount of traffic constitutes a potential risk for the marine environment.
The Defence Command Denmark (DCD) requested DNV GL to carry out a study focusing on oil spill
contingency as well as risk reducing measures linked to type and level of ship traffic in Greenland waters.
The study will serve as a basis for political and administrative discussions regarding future oil spill
contingency strategies and solutions for this area.
The scope of work for the analyses was to quantify and assess the response effectiveness of oil spill
response measures and to recommend potential future solutions for oil spill contingency as well as risk
reducing measures. This was done by:

A response gap analysis (RGA) for the whole Greenland area. The RGA analyses the
possibilities and limitations for available oil spill response techniques.

A response challenge index (RCI) to identify how the environmental sensitivity for seabirds
seen in connection with the risk of oil spills from ship traffic is affected by the response gap
(RGA).

An oil spill contingency analysis (OSCA) for ten selected scenarios. Assessment of the
applicability of different oil spill response strategies for Greenland.

An assessment of risk reducing measures (RRM) for ship traffic accidents.

An assessment of the shipping risk associated with icebergs.
Two workshops have been performed in Copenhagen on the 3rd and 4th of March 2015 to involve both
local stakeholders in Greenland, personnel involved in response operations, the DCD, and other
contributors with knowledge from Greenland, oil spill response, environmental factors and shipping risk.
The scope of the first workshop was to identify risk reducing measures related to the maritime activity
around Greenland. Special focus was to be given to measures that may reduce the environmental risk.
The second workshop was held for the response gap analysis and to get input on oil drift scenarios.
The input and background data used in the project are partially based on the “Marine Environmental Risk
Assessment (MERA) - Greenland” report prepared by DNV GL (2015) on behalf of the DCD /1/. The
Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) has provided an extensive environmental dataset that has been
applied in the study.
1.1 Study area
The response gap analysis and the analysis performed for risk reducing measures was limited to the
Greenland Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) including inner territorial waters (< 3 nm) (Figure ‎1-1). The
potential and effectiveness of shoreline clean-up is not included in this analysis and should be addressed
as a part of a future contingency solution. The oil drift modelling was performed for a larger area to be
able to follow oil that can potentially drift outside the EEZ. For the risk reducing measures, the study
area around Greenland was divided into 15 sub segments based on Danish Maritime Authority’s waters
division and the Danish Meteorological Institute.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 1
The study area presents challenging conditions for oil spill response e.g. low temperatures, polar lows
and an extensive seasonal ice-cover. The challenging conditions emphasises the need for risk reducing
measures and initially preventing an oil spill from occurring.
Figure ‎1-1 Map showing the study area for the RGA and the risk reducing measure
assessment- the borders of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as well as the scenario
locations for the OSCA.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 2
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Future oil spill strategies
Building upon the response gap analysis (RGA) and oil spill contingency analysis (OSCA) a set of
recommendations are given for future contingency solutions within the scope of this study.
The recommendations are based on applicability and effectiveness of the evaluated response strategies.
Local factors such as access to personnel, training and infrastructure are outside project scope and
therefore not considered in the evaluation. Accordingly relevant future work such as Net Environmental
Benefit Analysis (NEBA) and detailed contingency planning and cooperation is not covered.
In summary,
the recommended main response strategies and tactics are:
-
Source control e.g. containment booming
-
Open water response: Mechanical containment and recovery with offshore booms (mitigating
oil from reaching the shoreline and sensitive areas).
-
Monitoring and surveillance for spills in open waters.
Supplementary response measures are:
-
In-situ burning given special conditions (e.g. ice) and areas.
-
Application of dispersion given special conditions and areas.
In order to strengthen the effect of the main response strategies, focus has to be on
shortening system response times:
-
Mechanical recovery: Based on oil type, wind, sea-temperature and proximity to shore, a
short response time should be considered to be no longer than two days. Bunker oils are
more persistent on the surface than light fuel oils such as marine diesel and a response may
still have an effect up to five days after a spill.
-
Dispersant application: Bunker oil have a time-window for reduced dispersibility range
from 4-6 hours and 4-5 days dependent on oil type, wind speed, and sea temperature.
Response time for dispersant application is dependent of the dispersibility of the oil type.
-
In-situ Burning: The suitability of ISB depends on the initial oil characteristics (oil type, film
thickness) and the weathering state of the oil. Different crude oils have very different
ignitability due to different weathering rates based on their original chemical composition.
For further details on these recommendations, see chapter 4 (RGA) and 6 (OSCA).
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 3
2.2 Risk reducing measures
The identified risk reducing measures is found to have a combined potential risk reducing effect of up to
25 % when necessary infrastructure is in place. During several steps the following three risk reducing
measures are chosen and further analysed in a quantitative assessment:
-
Fully functional MAS (Marine Assistance Service)
-
Pilot service
-
Increased quality of fairways
The combined effect of the three risk reducing measures will in reality depend on the extent to which the
measures influence each other, and is not a sum of the individual risk reducing effects. The total risk
reducing effect is found to be about 27 %, and this number is further used in the model to demonstrate
the new risk picture, presented in Figure ‎2-1.
0,1
15
14
0,6
13
0,9
12
1
0,2
3,2
0,2
(-25 %)
2
11
5,0
(-25 %)
10
0,2
3
16,1
(-25 %)
0,2
4
1,3
9
(-22 %)
5
0,3
1,8
(-24 %)
8
6
7
0,2
0,3
(-9 %)
(-8 %)
Figure ‎2-1 Geographical representation of spill volumes, with risk reducing measures
implemented, aggregated per the 15 areas of Greenland [tons].
2.3 Shipping risk and iceberg probability
Possible impact reduction measures can contribute to reducing the probability of impacts between vessel
and icebergs. Risk reducing measures are qualitatively identified to be:

Identification of key geographic areas to implement additional measures.

Increased focus on the lookout and active use of radar.

Recommended maximum speeds to ensure adequate reaction time and manoeuvrability.

Recommended shipping lanes with low iceberg-concentrations.

Identification of minimum distances to icebergs to reduce the risk of growler impact.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 4
3
OIL SPILL RESPONSE TACTICS AND STRATEGIES– OVERVIEW
This chapter provides an overview and introduction to the oil spill response techniques that are included
in the RGA and partially in the OSCA.
Mechanical recovery with oil boom deployment
The term mechanical recovery refers to a response technique that
aims to physically collect and remove the spilled oil from the
environment. A traditional system configuration consists of 1–3
boats/vessels, a containment boom, an oil skimmer with a pump,
and a storage tank or device.
Operative environmental challenges are especially high wind and
sea states.
Mechanical recovery without oil boom deployment
If ice is present and booms cannot be deployed or towed,
mechanical recovery equipment (skimmers) is deployed directly into
the oil slick. This technique is expected to be most feasible in ice
concentrations > 40 %. At high ice concentrations (> 70 %) the ice
can provide a barrier against oil spreading.
Challenges of oil recovery in ice are e.g. limited manoeuvrability,
reduced encounter rates for skimmers, or clogging of pumps.
Containment booming
Source control and containment booming is a general strategy to
keep oil from spreading until a tactic is in place to recover and
remove oil. The objective is to encapsulate spilled oil on the water
with fixed booms, usually near the source (vessel), and by this
minimizing the spreading of oil to the environment.
Operative challenges can be e.g. high wind and sea states as the
boom can moved and the vessel is unable to keep at station.
Dispersant application by vessel
The use of chemical dispersants is a response technique which
enhances the natural dispersion of oil. A higher number of oil
droplets are created that are small enough to be permanently
captured in the water column and resist resurfacing.
Dispersants can be applied onto oil slicks by vessels by using spray
nozzles, pumps and hoses. Vessel-based operations are usually
limited by high winds and sea states.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 5
Dispersant application by aircraft
Dispersants can also be applied by aircrafts (fixed wing or rotarywing). Aircrafts have a greater operational range than vessels and
often shorter response times. The effectiveness of dispersants
varies and depends on the type and properties of the spilled oil and
decreases with oil-weathering.
Aerial operations are strongly limited by low visibility conditions. Ice
can reduce accessibility and mixing energy.
In-situ burning with fireproof booms
In-situ burning (ISB) is the term used for controlled burning of oil.
Spilled oil is gathered with fire-proof booms, ignited and burned
directly on the water surface. The suitability of ISB highly
depending on the initial oil characteristics (oil type, film thickness)
and the weathering state of the oil.
Containment and oil ignition can be difficult at high sea states and
winds may drive plume.
In-situ burning without fireproof booms
ISB can also be performed on or in broken ice. At high
concentrations (40- 90 %), ice can provide a barrier against oil
spreading and containment with booms may not be necessary.
Slush ice may reduce burn effectiveness or impede ignition and oil
can burn more slowly or less completely at low temperatures.
Natural dispersion
Natural dispersion is not defined as a response technique, but may
be considered beneficial in terms of removing oil from the sea
surface by natural factors such as high sea states and winds. The
monitoring and surveillance of spills without performing active
response measures could be a relevant option for spills in open
waters and/or far away from shore.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 6
4
RESPONSE GAP ANALYSIS - RGA
A response gap analysis reveals the percentage of time during an interval of time (e.g. month) when
environmental conditions (wind, sea state, sea ice and temperature) provides favorable, impaired of
ineffective conditions for defined oil spill response techniques. Visibility and the occurrence of icebergs
has been included and assessed qualitatively.
This RGA study was “high level” and the key questions were:

How do seasonal changes affect the applicability of the techniques?

Which techniques are most/least applicable?

Where are the techniques most/least applicable?
4.1 Methodology
In order to calculate a response gap for oil spill response techniques environmental datasets were
matched with the operational limitations set for oil spill response techniques. Figure ‎4-1 describes the
basic idea and methodology of a response gap analysis.
Figure ‎4-1 Basic principles of a response gap analysis.
Datasets for the following environmental parameters were incorporated in the response gap study. The
datasets have a grid size of 10 x 10 km and time resolution of 3 hours for the period 1 st of January 2004
to 31st of December 2013 (10 years). The following environmental parameters were used:

Wind

Wave height and wave period

Ice coverage

Light conditions

Superstructure icing

Wind chill
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 7
Visibility and iceberg data were not included in the RGA due to differences in resolution and data quality
but have been assessed qualitatively.
The environmental datasets were matched with the operational limitations of the following response
techniques including their combinations for open water and ice conditions (Table 1). All techniques are
described more in detail in chapter 3.
Table 1 Response techniques used in the RGA.
Combined techniques for open water:
Combined techniques for ice conditions:
Mechanical recovery with booms
Mechanical recovery without oil boom
deployment
Containment booming
Dispersant application by aircraft
Dispersant application by vessel
In-situ burning without fire proof boom
deployment
Dispersant application by aircraft
In-situ burning with fire proof boom
*Note that natural dispersion is not defined as a response
technique, but is included to give a picture of the expected
natural degradation of oil and is not included in the
Natural dispersion*
combined techniques.
For each technique operational limitations were set and classified into three response conditions
(Table 2). The amount of time each response condition favorable, impaired and ineffective occurred
during a month/year was calculated for all techniques and combinations. As an example, mechanical
recovery with booms was set to be favorable for wind speeds of 15 m/s, impaired between 15-20 m/s
and ineffective > 20 m/s.
Table 2 Categories for operational limitations.
Favorable: Oil spill response can be performed with no limitations due to weather, ice or sea
conditions (equipment is working).
Impaired: Response operations are possible to perform, but the response will require special
considerations and precaution due to weather, ice ore sea conditions, that will impede the performance
of the response.
Ineffective: Response operations will typically not be performed (e.g. due to safety reasons,
deployment of equipment impossible) or they do not function (e.g. ignition of oil due to high winds,
skimmer uptake due to rough seas state).
The RGA maps are colour coded with green, yellow and red in order to connect them with the categories
for operational limitations (Figure ‎4-2).
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 8
4.2 Presentation of the results
The results of the RGA can be presented in GIS based response maps. Monthly response gap maps for
each technique and for each response condition (favorable, impaired and ineffective) were created.
A green map illustrates the percentage of time in the given month the conditions for the response are
favorable. The yellow maps, illustrating the impaired conditions also represents a part of the window of
opportunity for oil spill response. Red maps illustrate the frequency of time when conditions is found to
be ineffective thus representing the response gap (Table 2).
Figure ‎4-2 shows as an example the results of the combined techniques in open water for the month of
July. It can be seen that especially in the southern and ice-free parts favorable response conditions
prevail (~ 60 %). The response gap for combined techniques in open water during July is thus < 20 %
for most of the area. In the northern areas the response gap increases to 80-100 %. This is due to
prevailing ice conditions in these areas.
Figure ‎4-2 Results of the RGA for combined techniques in open water during July based on a
10 years dataset.
4.3 Key findings of the RGA
Table 3 shows a summary of the yearly distribution of favorable,
impaired and ineffective response conditions for four selected
representative locations around Greenland (Figure ‎4-3).
It can be clearly seen that response techniques that are vessel
based and include the use of booms will overall be limited by the
presense of ice (Figure ‎4-4) and the regularity of these techniques
is best in the summer season.
Response strategies without booms can decrease the response
gap in areas and seasons with ice (e.g. from 90 % to 50 % at
Scorebysund entrance in March).
The use of dispersants by aircraft and vessel application has the
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Figure ‎4-3 Selected locations
for represented RGA results.
Page 9
largest window-of-opportunity with a favorable response frequency of 20 - 80 % during the summer
months. These two response technqiues also dominates the results for both combination techniques.
The use of in-situ burning (ISB) with fireproof booms as a response measure is most feasible during the
sommer month, however this technique faces more environmental challenges than mechanical recovery
or dispersant application. ISB in ice has the highest window-of opportunity during spring when ice
concentrations decreases.
The most favorable conditions for natural dispersion are found in the winter season in the southern and
eastern parts of Greenland (no ice, strong wind and waves).
In general, the RGA show significant patterns in operating conditions for oil spill response, both
seasonally and geographically as well as variations between the individual response meassures:
Seasonal pattern:
The variation between favorable, impaired and ineffective conditions are
significant for the various season. The highest frequency of favorable and
impaired conditions is predominatly found for the summer season, and with some
variations also for spring and autumn.
Geographical pattern: The RGA has identified an overall higher frequency for favorable conditions on the
westside of Greenland, mainly due to lesser ice cover along the westcoast. The
highest frequency for favorable conditions both in ice and open water is found
from approximately Upernavik in the northwest to Cape Farwell in the south and
the south eastern parts of Greenland (up to about 70° N) which is also the main
shipping route.
Technique pattern:
All response techniques are strongly influenced by the seasonal presence of ice.
All techniques with booms must be expected to face limiting conditions in ice.
Dispersant application has the largest window of opportunity. The response gap
can be decreased by including techniques for oils spill response in ice.
Figure ‎4-4 Average ice concentrations around Greenland during January (left) and July (right).
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 10
Table 3 RGA-results for all techniques throughout the year for four selected locations (blue =
open water techniques, grey = techniques in ice, green = technique for both conditions)
Baffin Bay
59° 31' 05.880" W
71° 51' 21.960" N
Southwest Coast
52° 8' 11.396" W
61° 23' 51.133" N
Southeast Coast
39° 15' 8.855" W
63° 41' 28.075" N
Scoresbysund
entrance
21° 36' 23.948" W
69° 59' 25.907" N
Combined
techniques for
open water
Combined
techniques for
ice conditions
Mechanical
recovery with
booms
Mechanical
recovery
without
booms
Containment
booming
Dispersant
application by
vessel
Dispersant
application by
aircraft
ISB with
fireproof
boom
ISB without
fireproof
boom
Natural
dispersion
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 11
4.4 Qualitative assessment of additional environmental
parameters
Icebergs
Deteriorating icebergs occur year round in Greenland waters,
but the highest risk for encountering ice bergs is on the west
side during spring and summer (Figure ‎4-5).
Regarding oil spill response equipment and techniques,
icebergs (especially smaller and submerged parts) can have
the potential of tearing booms used in an oil spill recovery
operation. The limiting factors when it comes to icebergs are
primarily health, safety and environment (HSE). The danger
of hitting submerged icebergs with boom-towing- or
dispersant vessels must be considered. Spotter aircraft used
for finding oil can also function as a spotter for icebergs;
other solutions are radar and general monitoring of the
movement of icebergs in an area with an on-going oil spill
response operation.
Icebergs are not seen as limiting for the use of dispersants
or in-situ burning. The presence of icebergs is expected to
be handled safely as a risk by well-prepared and experienced
personnel in Greenland waters.
Figure ‎4-5 Iceberg probability in
July.
Visibility
The probability of fog occurs year round, but is highest during
the summer months (Figure ‎4-6).
Lack of visibility in an oil spill response operation with vessels
can create an additional hazard as vessels involved risk for
collisions, grounding and breaking of equipment. Fog and
darkness will also cause limitations for spotter aircrafts (both
fixed wing and helicopters) and aerial dispersant application.
Aircrafts with dispersants must fly at a low altitude when
dispersants are to be applied on the sea surface and it must
be possible to visually see the oil slick.
Visibility challenges in fog are a problem that can be solvable
to different degrees with the constant improvement of
surveillance techniques (cameras, multi/hyperspectral sensors,
UV-sensors, thermal and infrared sensors).
The RGA showed a response gap < 10 % during July for aerial
dispersant application for mid and southern parts of
Greenland. It can be expected that by including visibility data
in the RGA, the frequency for favorable response conditions
would be decreased.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Figure ‎4-6 Probability of fog in
July.
Page 12
5
RESPONSE CHALLENGE INDEX - RCI
A Response Challenge Index (RCI) was developed. This to identify how the environmental sensitivity for
seabirds and the risk of oil spills from ship traffic identified in the MERA (DNV GL 2015) can be affected
by the response gap (RGA).
5.1 Methodology
To calculate the RCI, results from the response gap analysis (chapter ‎4) were combined with the results
of the environmental risk analysis from the MERA–report /1/(Figure ‎5-1).
Figure ‎5-1 The calculation process for the Response Challenge Index (RCI).
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 13
5.2 Results
In a global perspective, the traffic density in Greenland waters is low, resulting in a low number of
accidents and oil spills. In the MERA-report /1/ it is estimated that a vessel accident with oil spill will
occur on average once every third year. The estimated total average of yearly spill volume from all
vessels included in the MERA was 40 tons. This represents a low number of accidental spills, and also
spills with relatively low volume. The MERA also concludes with low probabilities for environmental risk.
When the RCI refers to high value, this will represent the highest value for baselinedata that has
identified the risk picture to be low.
An oil spill in and north of Disko Bay during spring have the potential of causing a negative impact on the
natural ressources in the area. This is the section with the highest RCI (Figure ‎5-2). The challenges for
oil spill response is found to be at a level that will cause them to have close to no effect. The presence of
sea ice limits the frequencies for favorable and impaired conditions. Ineffective conditions is clearly
present in ice and season with high ice cover. Risk reducing measures relevant for areas overlapping
with the areas of main consideration in the RCI are identified and discussed in chapter ‎8 – Risk reducing
measures. Solutions for the identified environmental risk and challenges for oil spill response is a case
for further work and should be included in a contingency plan.
Figure ‎5-2 RCI for seabirds, spring season.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 14
6
OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS - OSCA
The aim of the Oil Spill Contingency Analysis (OSCA) was to assess the effect of different oil spill
response measures for relevant oil spill scenarios.
6.1 Scenario and contingency set-up
Relevant oil spill scenarios were identified based on the results of the MERA-Report /1/, and set up at
various locations near- and offshore Greenland (Figure ‎6-1). Each scenario was modelled with SINTEFs
Oil Spill Contingency and Response (OSCAR) model with a 10 years current, wind, and ice dataset
(2004-2013). The OSCAR model does not currently include a built in function to model in-situ burning as
a response measure. Furthermore, it is not feasible to model oil spill recovery in ice covered waters in
OSCAR.
Figure ‎6-1 Locations and short description of the oil spill scenarios set up for the OSCA.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 15
Based on discussions involving DNV GL and the Defence Command Denmark, both existing oil spill
contingency strategies and other potential response measures were identified and used in the modelling
work. In total, eight response measures were identified and set up in the OSCAR model (Table 4). Each
spill scenario was modelled with all contingency configurations.
Table 4 Overview of response configurations used in OSCAR modelling.
Response
measure
_0_
Number of Systems
Short concept description
none
No contingency measures
implemented- reference scenario
2 mechanical containment and recovery
systems
Evaluating the effect of the
existing oil spill capacity of the
Defense Command Denmark (2 oil
spill response vessels located in
Frederikshavn, DK).
2 vessel-based dispersant systems
Evaluating the potential of having
an adapted response concept by
using military inspection vessels
from the Danish Defense which
operate in the Greenland area.
Vessels will be equipped with a
mobile dispersant kit.
1 aircraft-based dispersant systems
Evaluating a future concept by
using a fixed-wing aircraft from
Denmark (e.g. Lockheed Hercules
C-130A) for dispersant
application.
1 mechanical containment and recovery system
for open ocean recovery
Evaluating a future concept with
having one open-ocean
mechanical recovery system
stationed in Greenland. The
resource equals a modern standby or supply vessel in offshore
petroleum industry.
2 mechanical containment and recovery
systems for coastal waters recovery
Evaluating a future response
concept with two coastal
mechanical recovery systems
stationed in Greenland which will
be able to respond to spills close
to shore.
Reference
scenario
_A_
Baseline
scenario
_B_
Adapted
response
option
_C_
Future
concept
_D_
Future
concept
_E_
Future
concept
_F_
Combination
baseline
and adapted
response
2 mechanical containment and
recovery systems + 2 vesselbased dispersant systems
Evaluating the combined effect of
currently existing or easily
adaptable response measures.
Combination of response
measures A and B.
1 aircraft-based
dispersant
systems + 1 open
ocean + 2 coastal
containment and
recovery systems
Evaluating the combined effect of
future response concepts.
Combination of response
measures C, D, and E.
_G_
Combination
future
concepts
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 16
6.2 Presentation of results
The main modelling results of an OSCA are the mass balance data. The mass balance shows the fate of
the oil at a certain time after the release.
From the beginning of a release to the end of the simulation the oil particles are exposed to natural
weathering processes and/or human influence such as response measures. The oil can e.g. evaporate
into the atmosphere, disperse into the water column, settle on the sea bed, biodegrade in the water
column, drift on the surface, reach shore or be collected (recovered). The recovery parameter quantifies
the effect of the specified recovery systems in in the given scenario.
A modelling period of 35 days was chosen in order to ensure that there is enough time to follow the fate
of the oil also for response measures with long response times.
Figure ‎6-2 shows as an example the mass balance results for scenario 1a. At the end of the simulation
(35 days after the spill), and using response option _E_ as an example, the majority of the oil has
dispersed naturally (48,5 %). 4,1 % of the oil biodegrades and 2,7 % remains on the sea surface. The
fraction of stranded oil is modelled to 0.1 %. 30,6 % of the oil is collected by 2 mechanical containment
and recovery systems for coastal waters recovery (_E_).
According to the OSCA results, no effect is observed using response measures A, B, C, and F. The model
indicates that response vessels located nearer to the defined spill location (Greenland based equipment)
have a potential for recovering part of the oil mechanically. To have an effect, the response time needs
to be shorter than the 8 – 15 days from Denmark.
Figure ‎6-2 Mass balance 35 days after a surface spill with 12 hours duration for scenario 1a.
_0_ to _G_ represents the different response measure set-ups.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 17
Influence area maps for each scenario were
created based on the results of the simulations
(based on 10 years of data). The influence area
summarises the statistical probability of oil in a
given area (grid cell) and not the actual extent of
an oil spill.
The influence area of scenario 1a shows that the
oil will primarily drift westwards from the spill site
into the open sea (Figure 6-3). The area with a hitprobability of > 50 % of oil is westwards from the
location (black to dark orange in figure). Ice data
for 2013 at the middle of the modelling season
showed that there might be a potential overlap
between oil and ice in Disko Bay with a probability
of < 10 %.
6.3 Key findings of the OSCA
Figure ‎6-3 Possible influence area (> 5 %) in
3 x3 km grid cells given a surface oil spill at
the location of Scenario 1a.
The key findings from the OSCA for all scenarios are presented in Table 5. The modelled response
measures were evaluated based on their ability to reduce the fractions of surface and stranded oil as well
as their operational relevance. A response measure was considered as relatively effective (green colour)
if the response measure recovered > 1 % of the oil and reduced the amount of surface or stranded oil
by > 1 %. Yellow colour illustrates response measures which were effective in the simulation, however
would not be feasible in reality (e.g. coastal systems operating in offshore conditions, dispersant
application in darkness).
Grey cells illustrate either no modelled effect from response measures, or a modelled effect that
correlates with a reduction in the natural dispersion in the mass balance (marginal net effect). For
example for scenario 1a, response measures _A_, _B_, _C_, and _F_ shows no modelled effect, the
mass balance after 35 days of simulation is the same as those of the scenario with no response
measures. The mechanical recovery systems in response measure _D_ are able to recover 5 % of the oil,
however the mass balance shows that the recovered oil fraction correlates with the reduced fraction of
natural dispersed oil. For response measures that include chemical dispersion, this indicates no net effect
as the end state for both alternatives will be dispersed oil. For mechanical recovery the modelled effect
should on the other hand be considered beneficial even though it indicates no net effect in the mass
balance. Mechanical recovery (e.g. _D_) will result in reduced amount of oil in the environment. Hence,
the grey category does not automatically indicate zero effect from the response measures.
Mechanical recovery is according to the mass balance data assessed to be the most effective strategy;
however, the output is strongly affected by response time - short response time is essential in order to
recover oil from surface. Chemical dispersion can, according to the modelling results, have some effect
on marine diesel but no apparent effect on bunker oils.
A seasonal correlation for the effectiveness of the response measures was observed in the modelling
with summer conditions being more favorable than winter. This is due to harsher weather conditions
during winter which leads to reduced system effectiveness combined with more natural dispersion and
thus less available surface oil to recover.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 18
Table 5 Key findings from the OSCA. A response measure was considered as positive effective (green
color) if the response measure recovered > 1 % of the oil and reduced the amount of surface or stranded
oil by > 1 %. Yellow illustrates effective response measures in the OSCAR mode setup, however, not
assessed as feasible in case of an oil spill. Grey cells illustrate no modelled effect or reduction in natural
dispersion.
Modelled effect of response measure
Scenario
1a
IFO 380
156 tons
Sept.-Nov.
1b
IFO 380
156 tons
Sept.-Feb.
2a
IFO 380
25192 tons
Mar.-Aug.
2b
IFO 380
25192 tons
Mar.-Aug.
3a
IF 180
163 tons
Sept.-Feb.
3b
IF 180
163 tons
Sept.-Feb.
4a
Marine diesel
38 tons
Mar.-Aug.
4b
Marine diesel
38 tons
Mar.-Aug.
5a
IFO 380
398 tons
Jun.-Aug.
5b
IF 180
104 tons
Jun.-Aug.
Main oil
behaviour
after 35
days
Oil mainly
disperses
(71 %); 3 %
remain on sea
surface;
no stranding
Oil mainly
disperses
(72 %); 3 %
remains on
sea surface;
no stranding
Oil mainly
disperses
(60 %); 9 %
remain on sea
surface;
3 % stranding
Oil mainly
disperses
(63 %);13 %
remain on
surface;
4 % stranding
Oil mainly
disperses
(67 %); 3 %
remain on
surface;
no stranding
Oil mainly
disperses
(66 %);3 %
remain on sea
surface;
no stranding
Oil mainly
evaporates
(40 %);
no oil on
surface; 29 %
stranding
Oil evaporates
(30 %); no oil
on surface;
37 %
stranding
47 % of the oil
strands; 16%
remain on
surface
Oil mainly
disperses
(39 %); 16 %
remain on
surface,
2 % stranding
_A_
_B_
_C_
_D_
_E_
_F_
_G_
30 % oil
recovery;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
and
surface oil
6 % oil
recovery
Reduces
natural
dispersion
No
modelled
effect
No increased
oil recovery;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
and surface
oil
No increased
oil recovery;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
No
modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
No modelled
effect
5 % oil
recovery;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
No
modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
No modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
1 % oil
recovery
No
modelled
effect
No modelled
effect
6 % oil
recovery;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
and oil on
surface
6 % oil
recovery;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
and oil on
surface
No
additional
effect
1 % oil
recovery
No
modelled
effect
No modelled
effect
2 % oil
recovery;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
4 % oil
recovery;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
No
additional
effect
No
modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
No modelled
effect
2 % oil
recovery;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
14 % oil
recovery;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
No
modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
No modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
No modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
Dispersants
reduces
amount of
stranded oil
No increased
oil recovery;
reduces
amount of
stranded oil
No
modelled
effect
Dispersants
reduces
amount of
stranded oil
No
modelled
effect
No increased
oil recovery;
reduces
amount of
stranded oil
1 % oil
recovery
No
modelled
effect
No modelled
effect
No
additional
effect
1 % oil
recovery
No
modelled
effect
No modelled
effect
39 % oil
recovery;
reduces
amount of
stranded
oil
6 % oil
recovery;
reduces
amount of
stranded
oil
12 % oil
recovery;
reduces
amount of
stranded
and
surface oil
2 % oil
recovery;
reduces
amount of
surface oil
No
modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
12 % oil
recovery;
reduces
amount of
stranded
oil
No
modelled
effect
No increased
oil recovery;
reduces
amount of
stranded
and surface
oil
No increased
oil recovery;
reduces
amount of
surface oil
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
5 % oil
recovery;
reduces
amount of
stranded
and
surface oil
No
modelled
effect
No
modelled
effect
No
additional
effect
Increased oil
recovery to
11 %;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
and surface
oil
Increased oil
recovery to
6 %;
Reduces
natural
dispersion
and oil on
surface
No increased
oil recovery;
reduces
natural
dispersion
Page 19
7
RISK REDUCING MEASURES - RRM
The MERA-report /1/ presents the estimated risk level of current vessel traffic in Greenland based on
statistics of the main types and causes of accidents. The results showed that oil spills caused by
grounding accidents represents the largest risks.
The purpose of this part of the study was to identify possible new preventative risk reduction measures
for marine activities along the coast of Greenland. These measures were assessed with respect to benefit
and decision support. Furthermore, risk reducing measures that can contribute to reducing the
probability of impacts between vessel and icebergs were identified.
7.1 Methodology
On the workshop conducted in Copenhagen, the following risk reducing measures related to the maritime
activity around Greenland were identified and grouped into three categories (Figure ‎7-1):





Marine Assistance Service
(MAS)
AIS/VHF coverage along
relevant parts of the coastline/
increased satellite coverage
Reporting and information
service
Attitude campaigns
Recommendations/best
practiceRequirement for AIS
(vessels that is not covered by
Fully functional MAS
the existing requirements)

Pilot Service/Endorsement
Pilot Service


Navigation marks
Better bathymetric maps/
Increased quality of
Improved ECDIS maps
fairways
Figure ‎7-1 Identified risk reducing measures for Greenlandic waters.
Based on an extensive literature study the following conservative factors for risk reduction effect have
been assessed: 15 % for MAS, 7.5 % for pilot services, and 8 % for increased quality of fairways.
The total risk reducing effect was modelled according to the following equation:
𝑇𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 = 1 − ∏(1 − 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑥)
The total combined risk reducing effect was calculated to be 27 %. This number was further used in recalculations of the overall risk picture for Greenland. A detailed methodology description can be found in
the MERA-report /1/.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 20
7.2 Results
The risk picture before and after implementation of the three risk reducing measures is shown as spill
volumes in Figure ‎7-2.
The right map is representing the estimated average yearly spill volume before risk reducing measures,
while the left map shows the reduced spill volumes due to risk reducing measures. The nature of the
traffic, i.e. distances sailed in close proximity to shore, varies between the regions. Depending on this,
the estimated 27 % reduction in collision and grounding accidents has varying net effects on the total
risk in each region. Thus the reduction varies between 8 % and 25 % between the regions.
0,1
0,1
15
14
15
14
0,6
13
0,9
12
1
0,2
4,2
0,6
13
0,9
12
0,2
3,2
0,2
(-25 %)
2
11
10
2
11
6,6
0,2
(-25 %)
1,7
5
0,3
8
0,2
4
1,3
9
(-22 %)
(-24 %)
8
6
7
0,2
0,4
5
0,3
1,8
2,4
3
16,1
4
9
0,2
3
10
21,6
5,0
(-25 %)
0,2
1
0,2
Risk reducing
measures
implemented
6
7
0,2
0,3
(-9 %)
(-8 %)
Figure ‎7-2 Geographical representation of spill volumes, with risk reducing measures
implemented, aggregated per the 15 areas of Greenland. Average yearly spill volumes before
(left) and after (right) risk reducing measures [tons].
7.3 Key Findings
The combined effect of the risk reducing measures, Fully functional Marine Assistance Service (MAS),
pilot service and increased quality of fairways will in reality depend on the extent to which the measures
influence each other, and is not a sum of the individual risk reducing effect. As an example, compulsory
pilotage and an efficient MAS (VTS) will have an overlapping effect.
The risk reducing measures are based on structuring and utilizing existing infrastructure in addition to
available maritime capabilities. The maritime capabilities consist of e.g. standby tugs, transiting cargo
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 21
vessels and navy vessels in the vicinity. This is mainly found along the south-western part of the
Greenlandic coast where implementation of the suggested risk reducing measures is feasible.
In areas with marginal infrastructure and low marine activity a marine assistance service has few or no
resources to coordinate in an emergency situation. A pilot service and increased quality of fairways will
mainly have a preventive effect, especially when the charts are of marginal quality and ice might force
the vessel out of planned route.
8
SHIPPING RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ICEBERGS
The risk associated with icebergs is hard to assess as very little statistics are available. However, it is
evident that the presence of icebergs represents an additional challenge in Greenlandic waters.
It has been argued that as icebergs are visible both to the naked eye and on radar and that they can
easily be avoided. However, there are cases where vessels have obtained considerable damage from
collisions with large icebergs. These incidents have in most cases come as a result of poor lookout
procedures and challenging manoeuvring conditions.
8.1 Methodology
To assess the risk associated with ship traffic in iceberg infested waters, and to identify possible
mitigating measures to reduce the risk of impact, available iceberg data were analysed and an ice impact
index was calculated.
For this, both traffic and iceberg density was weighted and an Iceberg Impact Index (I.I.I.) was defined
as:
I.I.I. = no. of icebergs pr. year * nautical miles sailed pr. year
The calculation was based on yearly numbers of identified icebergs present in open water conditions
(2009-2014). Seasonal variations were not taken into account. Number of nautical miles sailed/year was
based on AIS data from 2013.
8.2 Results - Areas of high risk
Figure ‎8-1 shows the results of the calculated Iceberg Impact Index. Based on the analysis it is clear
that the Iceberg Impact Index is highest close to the shore line. A high iceberg concentration was also
expected to appear near the coast due to the coastal current and the grounding of icebergs. The traffic
density is also highest in the coastal regions.
Growlers and bergy bits (smaller pieces of ice originating from icebergs) represent a major hazard for
small to medium size vessels or vessels with low or no ice class. This type of ice is at times extremely
difficult to distinguish from breaking waves as it is relatively small and has a low freeboard.
Parameters like visibility, sea state and lookout will influence the ability to identify and avoid growlers
and bergy bits. Vessel speed will also greatly affect the reaction time from observation to a potential
impact (manoeuvrability/turning radius).
It should be noted that the Danish Maritime Authority in 2016 will issue an administrative regulation for
Greenland waters regarding compulsory pilotage for ships carrying more than 250 passengers.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 22
Figure ‎8-1 Iceberg Impact Index for Greenland representing areas with increased risk for
interaction between icebergs and vessels. Red circles highlight the areas listed in section 8.3.
8.3 Key findings
The following areas were identified to have an increased risk of experiencing interaction between
icebergs and vessels:

The entrance to the fjord systems encompassing Narsaq and Qaqortoq

Coast off Nunarssit (Kobbermine bugt)

Entrance to Nuuk fjord

Aasiaat/Disko Bay

Upernavik
The location of the identified areas can be seen as highlighted with red circles in Figure ‎8-1, starting at
Narsaq and Qaqortoq as the southernmost, and Upernavik as the northernmost. Possible impact
reduction measures can contribute to reducing the probability of impacts between vessel and icebergs
(see recommendations – chapter 2).
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 23
9
REFERENCES
/1/
DNV GL. Marine Environmental Risk Assessment - Greenland. Report prepared for the Defence
Command Denmark. 2015;No. 2014-0951, Rev. B.
DNV GL – Report No. 2015-0587, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com
Page 24
About DNV GL
Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations
to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical
assurance along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas,
and energy industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of
industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our
customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.