AN OILSPILL RISK ANALYSIS FOR THE NORTON SOUND, ALASKA, (PROPOSED SALE 57) OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASE AREA By ',iilliarn B. Samuels and Kenneth J. Lanfear ------------1*----------------------------------------- U. S. GE9LOGICAL SiJRYEY OPEN-FILE REPORT 31-323
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
AN OILSPILL RISK ANALYSIS FOR THE NORTON SOUND, ALASKA,
Deci s ionmaki ng under risk and uncer ta in ty --------- 3
Summary o f the proposed action and t he m a j o r a l t e rna t ives 4
E s t i m a t e d quantity o f o i l resources ---------------- 1 I)
Probabi 1 i ty of oil spills occurring ---------------- 11
Oil spi 1 1 t r a jec to ry simulations ------------------- 13
Combi ned anal ysi s o f oi 1 s p i 11 occurrence and oi 1 spill t r a jec to ry sinulations ---------------- 15
11 l u s t r a t i ons
Page I. Yap showing t h e Nor ton Sound
OCS Lease Sa l e 57 study a r e a and the proposed lease t racts . ........................ 5
2 . Map showing the s u b d i v i s i o n s of t he proposed leas? t r a c t s f o r Nor ton Sound 9CS Lease S a l e 57. ...................... 5
3 . ,Yap showing t h e 1,aunch p o i n t s which r e p r e s e n t p l a t f o m 1 o c a t i o n s , p ipe1 ines (dashed 1 i nes) , and tanker routes ( s o l i d 1 inzs) . Polygons represent proposed qease t rac ts . -------------- 7
4 . i4ap showing the division of t he Norton Sound open sea boundary and coast1 i ne i n t o 34 szgments o f a p p r o x i m a ~ s l y equal l z n g t h . ---- 9
5 . Estimated frzquency d i s t r i a u t i o n f o r oil s p i l l s greater t h a n 1,000 and 10,000 barrels o c c u r r i n g d u r i ng t i l e e x p c t ed p r o d u c t i on 1 i i? of the g raposed lease t r ac t s f o r Norton Sound oCS Lease Sa l z 57 . 15
5. Results of a significance tes t for any two q r g b a b i l i t i e s (45 t r i a l s , 90 percent c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l ) . ............................. 13
Page
1. O i l s p i l 1 p r o b a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s f o r s p i l l s greater t h a n 1,000 and 10,000 b a r r e l s r e s c l t i n g f r o m ~ C S Lease Sa l e 57. 1 4
2 . Monte C a r l o e r r o r as a f u n c t i o n of t h e number o f t r i a l s and the estimated p r o b a S i l i t y . ------ 17
3 . P r o b a b i l i t i e s ( e x p r e s s e d as p e r c e n t c h a n c e ) t h a t a n o i l s p i l l s t a r t i n g a t a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n w i l l c o n t a c t a c e r t a i n t a r g e t w i t h i n 3 days . -- 19
4. P r o b a b i l i t i e s ( e x p r e s s e d a s p e r c e n t c ? a n c e ) t h a t an o i l s p i l l s t a r t i n g a t a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n w i l l c o n t a c t a c e r t a i n t a r g e t w i t n i n 10 days . 2 0
5. P r o b a b i l i t i e s ( e x p r e s s e d as p e r c e n t c h a n c e ) t h a t an o i l s p i l l s t a r z i n g a t a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n wi l 1 c o n t a c t a c e r t a i n t a r g e t w i t h i n 30 days. 21
6 . P robab i 1 i t i e s ( e x p r e s s s d a s 9 e r c e n t c h a n c e ) t h a t a n o i l s p i l 1 s t a r t i n g a t a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n w i l l c o n t a c t a c e r t a i n l and o r sea segment w i t h i n 3 days, ............................... 2 2
7 . P r o b a b i l i t i e s ( e x p r e s s e d as g e r c e n t chance) t h a t a n o i l s p i l l s t a r t i n g a t a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n w i l l c o n t a c t a c e r t a i n l and or sea segment w i t h i n 10 d a y s . .............................. 2 3
8. P r o b a b i l i t i e s ( e x p r e s s e d a s percent chance) t h a t a n o i l s p i l 1 s t a r t i n g a t a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n w i i l contac t a c e r t a i n l a n d or sea s e g n e n t w i t h i n 30 days. .............................. ? 4
9. P r o b a b i l i t i e s ( e x p r e s s e d as p e r c e n t c h a n c e ) o f one o r more s p i l l s , the most l i k e l y number o f s p i 11 s (mode) and the e x p e c t e d number of s p i l l s (mean) o c c u r r i n g and c o n t a c t i n g t a r g e t s o v e r tne p r o d u c t i o n l i f e o f t h e p r ~ p o s e d l e a s e t r a c t s u s i n g o n s h o r e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s c e n a r i o . - 26
i i i
Tables (continued) - Page
10. Probabi l i t ies (expressed as percent chance) of one or more spi 1 Is, the most [ ike ly number o f spil Is (mode) and the expected number of s p i l l s (mean) occurring and contacting t a rge t s over the product ion l i f e of the proposed lease t r a c t s u s i n g offshore transportat ion scenario. 2 /
11. Probabi I1 t i e s (expressed as percent chance) of one or aore spi l I s , t h e most l ikely number of s p i l l s (mode), and the expected number of s p i 1 Is (mean) occurring and contact ing t a rge t s over the production l i f e of the north delet ion a l t e rna t ive using onshore t r an spo r t a t~on scenarl 0. ...................... 23
12. Probabi l i t ies (expressed as percent chance) of one or m r e spi l Is, the most l i k e l y number o f spil Is (mode), and the expected number of s p i l Is (mean) occurring and contacting t a rge t s over the production l i f 2 o f the n o r t h delet ion a l t e rna t ive using offshore transportat ion scenario. ---------------------- 29
13. Probabi l i t ies (expressed as percent chance) of one or ;I;;;'? spil Is , the most likely number o f s p i l Is (node), and the expected number o f spi l Is (mean) occurring and contacting t a rge t s over the product~on l i f e o f the south delet ion a l ternat ive using onshore transportat ion scenario. -------------- 30
14. ProbaSi l i t ies (expressed as percent chance) o f one or sore s p i l l s , t h e most l ikely number of spi 1 l s (mode), and the expected number of s p i l l s (mean) occurring and contacting t a rge t s over the production l i f e of the south delet ion a l t2rnat ive using offshore t r an spo r t a t~on scenario. ------------- 3 1
15. Probabi l i t ies (zxpressed as percent chance) of one or more s p i l l s , the most l i k e l y number of spi 1 I s (mode), and the expected number of s p i l l s (mean) occurring and contacting t a rge t s ove r the production l i f e of the eas t delet ion a l t e r n ~ t i v e using onshore transportat ion scenario. -------------- 3 2
Tab1 es (continued) Page
15. Probabi l i t ies (expressed as percent chance) of one o r more s p i l l s , the most l ike ly number of s p i l l s (mode), and the expected number of spi 1 1 s (mean) occurring and contacting t a rge t s over the production l i f e of the eas t delet ion a l t e rna t ive using offshore t ranspor ta t i o n scenariorio. ------------- 33
1 7 . Probabi l i t ies (expressed as percent chance) of one o r more s p i l l s , the most l ike ly number of spi 1 1 s (node), and the expected nunber of s p i l l s (mean) occurring and contacting l a n d and sea segments over the production l i f ? of the proposed lease t r a c t s using onshore transportat ion scenario. -------------- 3 4
18. Probabi 1 i t i e s (2xpressed as percent chance) of one or ?ore spil l s , the most 1 ikely number of s p i l l s (mode), and the expected number o f s p i l l s (mean) occurring and contacting land and sea segments over the production l i f e of the proposed lease t r a c t s using o f f s h o r e t ransportat ion scenario. ------------- 3 5
19. Probabi 1 i t i es (expressed as percent chance) of one or more s p i l l s , the most l ikely number of s p i l l s (mode), and the expected number of spi 1 1 s (mean) occurring and contacting 1 and and sea segments over the production l i f e of the n o r t h delet ion a1 ternat ive using onshore t ranspor ta t ion scenario. -------------- 3 5
20. Probabi l i t ies (expressed as percent chance) of one o r more s p i l l s , t h e most l ike ly numer of sp i l l s (mode), and the expected number of sp i l l s (mean) occurring and contacting land and sea segments over the production l i f e o f t he north delet ion a1 te rnat ive using offshore transportat ion scenario. ------------- 3 7
Tab1 es (continued) Page
21. Probabi 1 i t i e s (expressed as percent chance) o f one or more s p i l l s , the most l ike ly number of s p i l l s (mode), and the expected number of sp i l l s (mean) occurri ng and contacting 1 and and sea segments over the production l i f e of the south delet ion a1 ternat ive using onshore transportat ion scenario. -------------- 38
22. Probabi l i t ies (expressed as percent chance) of one o r more s p i l l s , the most l ike ly nunber of spi 1 1 s (mode), and t h e expected number of s p i l l s (mean) occurring and contacting land and sea segments over the production l i f e of t h e south delet ion a l ternat ive using off shore t ranspor ta t ion scenario. ------------- 39
23. Probabi 1 i t i es (expressed as percent chance) of one or more spi 1 1 s , the most l i kely number of spi 1 1 s (mode), and the expected number of s p i l l s (mean) occurring and contacting land and sea segments over the production l i f a of the eas t delet ion a1 te rnat ive using onshore transportat ion scenario. -------------- 40
24. Probabi l i t ies (expressed as percent chance) o f one o r more spil l s , the most l ike ly number 3f spi 1 1 s (mode), and the expected number of sp i l l s (mean) occurring and contacting l a n d and sea segments over the production 1 i f e of the eas t delet ion a l ternat ive using offshore transportat ion scenario. ------------- 4 1
AN OILSPILL RISK ANALYSIS FOR THE N O R T O N SOUND, ALASKA,
Abstract - An o i l s p i l l r i s k analysis was conducted to determine the re la t ive
environmental hazards of developing oil i n d i f fe ren t regions of the Norton Sound, Alaska, (Proposed Sale 5 7 ) Outer Conti nental She1 f ( O C S ) lease area. The probabi 1 i t y of s p i l l occurrences, 1 i kely rnovenent of oi l s l i ck s , and locations of resources vulnerable t o sp i l l ed oil were analyzed. T h e times between sp i l l occurrence and contact w i t h various resources were a1 so estimated. The combined resu l t s yi el ded estimates 3 f the overall r i sks associ ated with development of the proposed lease area. Assuming t ha t o i l ex i s t s i n the lease area ( a 14-percent chance) and depend; ng upon the routes chosen t o transport o i l from 3 C S platforms t a the shore, the leasing of the t r a c t s proposed f o r OCS Sale 57 will r e su l t i z Jn expected 2.8 o i l s p i l l s (o f 1,000 barre ls or l a rge r ) . The estimated probability t ha t land will be contacted by one or more o i l s p i l l s ( o f 1,000 bar re l s or l a rge r ) t h a t have been a t sea l e s s than 30 days i s 0.51 t o C.53, depending on the proposed transportat ion method chosen.
I n t roduc t i on - The Federal Government has proposed t o o f f e r Outer Con t inen ta l
She l f ( O C S ) lands o f f t h e Nor ton Sound, Alaska, coas t f o r o i l and gas leas ing . The c o n d i t i o n a l mean es t imate of o i l resources f o r t h e proposed 429 t r a c t s i s 480 m i l l i o n b a r r e l s of crude o i l . The p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t o i l occurs i n commercial q u a n t i t i e s i n t h e s a l e area i s 14 percent . The chance t h a t o i 1 w i 1 1 no t be found i n economical l y recoverab le q u a n t i t i e s i s 86 percent . T h i s r e p o r t examines what cou ld happen i f o i l i s found. Cont ingent upon ac tua l d i scovery of o i l , p roduc t i on i s expected t o span a p e r i o d o f 25 years.
O i l s p i l l s a re a major problem assoc ia ted w i t h o f f s h o r e o i l p roduc t ion . An impor tan t f a c t t h a t stands ou t when one a t tempts t o eva lua te t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f acc iden ta l o i l s p i l l s i s t h a t t h e problem i s fundamental l y p robab i l i s t i c . Unce r t a i n t y e x i s t s about t he amount o f o i l t h a t w i l l be produced from t h e leases and t h e number and s i z e o f s p i l l s t h a t m igh t occur du r i ng t h e l i f e of p roduc t ion , as w e l l as t h e wind and c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n s t h a t would e x i s t a t t he t i m e o f a s p i l l occurrence and give d i r e c t i o n t o t h e o i l s l i c k . Al though some o f t h e u n c e r t a i n t y r e f l e c t s incomplete and imper fec t data, cons iderab le u n c e r t a i n t y i s s imp ly i nhe ren t i n t h e problem of d e s c r i b i ng f u t u r e events over which complete c o n t r o l cannot be exerc ised. Since i t can no t be p r e d i c t e d w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t a p robab i l i s t i c event such as an o i 1 s p i l l w i 11 occur, o n l y t h e l i k e 1 ihood o f occurrence can he q u a n t i f i e d . The range o f poss ib l e e f f e c t s t h a t lnay accompany a d e c i s i o n ~n n i l and gas p roduc t i on must 5e considered. I n a t tempt ing t o m a i n t a i n perspec t i ve on t he p r ~ b l e m , each p o t e n t i a l e f fec t must be assoc ia ted w i t h a q u a n t i t a t i v e es t imate of i t s p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurrence.
Th i s r e p o r t sumnarizes r e s u l t s o f an o i l s p i l l r i s k a n a l y s i s conducted f o r t h e proposed Nor ton Sound OCS Lease Sale 57. The s tudy had t h e o b j e c t i v e o f de te rmin ing re1 a t i v e r i s k s assoc ia ted w i t h o i l and gas p roduc t i on i n d i f f e r e n t reg ions of t h e proposed lease area. The s tudy was undertaken f o r cons ide ra t i on i n t h e d r a f t environmental i npac t statement ( E I S ) , which i s prepared f o r t h e area by t h e Bureau o f Land Management (BLM), and t 3 a i d i n t h e f i n a l s e l e c t i o n o f t r a c t s t o be o f f e r e d f o r sa le . A d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e o i l s p i l l t r a j e c t o r y a n a l y s i s model used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s can be found i n p rev ious papers (Lanfear and others , 1979; Smith and o thers , 1980; Lanfear and Samuels, 1981). The a n a l y s i s was conducted i n t h r e e p a r t s corresponding t o d i f f e r e n t aspects o f t h e o v e r a l l problen. The f i r s t p a r t d e a l t w i t h t h e p r o b a P i l i t y o f o i 1 s p i l l occurrence, and t h e second w i t h t h e t r a j e c t o r i e s of o i l s p i l l s f rom p o t e n t i a l launch p o i n t s t o va r ious t a rge t s . Resu l t s o f t h e f i r s t two p a r t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s were then combined t o g i ve est imates o f t he overa l 1 o i l s p i l l r i s k assoc ia ted w i t h o i 1 and gas p roduc t i on i n t h e lease area.
Decisionmaking Under R isk and U n c e r t a i n t y
O i l s p i 1 1 impacts r e s u l t p r i m a r i l y f rom two events t h a t a re probabi 1 i s t i c i n na tu re : o i 1 s p i l l occurrence caused by acc idents , and o i l s p i l l movement d i r e c t e d by random winds and cur ren ts . Al though a p r o b a b i l i s t i c event ( s ~ h as an o i l s p i l l ) cannot be p red i c t ed w i t h c e r t a i n t y , t h e l i k e 1 ihood o f occurrence can be q u a n t i f i e d . The l i k e l i h o o d t h a t o i l s p i l l s w i l l r e s u l t f rom an OCS l e a s i n g d e c i s i o n can be est imated, b u t whether they w i l l a c t u a l l y occur can o n l y be known a f t e r t h e area i s exp lored and t h e o i l , i f any, i s produced. Th i s s i t u a t i o n i s i n c o n t r a s t t o a d e t e r m i n i s t i c s i t u a t i o n where a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n can be depended upon t o produce a s p e c i f i c r e s u l t .
I n making dec is ions under r i s k and u n c e r t a i n t y , i n v e s t i g a t o r s must understand t h a t a cho ice can have a range o f p o s s i b l e outcomes. Genera l ly , a d e s i r e t o maximize t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e most f avo rab le outcomes must be tempered by t he need t o min imize t he p robab i l i t y o f h i g h l y unfavorab le outcomes. The U .S. Geolog ica l Survey (USGS) O i 1 sp i 11 T r a j e c t o r y Ana l ys i s (OSTA) Yodel was designed t o r e f l e c t t h e range o f poss i b l e outcomes o f l e a s i n g dec is ions by e s t i m a t i n g t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurrence f o r each d i s c re te outcome; s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t est imates t h e 1 i k e l i hood t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t w i l l be contacted by 0, 1, 2, ..., N o i l s p i l 1s du r i ng t h e p roduc t i on 1 i f e o f an O C S lease area.
The p r o b a b i l i t y t k z t , i f an o i l s p i l l occurs a t a g i ven launch po in t , i t w i l l con tac t a p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t i s termed a c o n d i t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y . Such c o n d i t i o n a l p robab i l i t i e s can be very use fu l i n i d e n t i f y i n g those launch p o i n t s a t which an o i l s p i l l , i f i t occurs, w i l l pose t n e h i ghes t r i s k s t o va r i ous t a rge t s . Tables o f c o n d i t i o n a l probabi 1 i t i e s can he1 p t h e ana l ys t t o s e l e c t a1 t e r n a t i ves t h a t w i l 1 reduce o v e r a l l r i s k . However, condi t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s do no t i n c l u d e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f o i l s p i l l occurrence. It i s assumed t h a t a t r a c t t h a t con ta ins l i t t l e o r no o i l i s a smal 1 r i s k because, no ma t t e r how h igh t h e c o n d i t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y o f c o n t a c t i n g a t a r g e t nay be, t h e small amount o f o i l makes i t u n l i k e l y t h a t an o i l s p i l l w i l l occur. A lso, c o n d i t i o n a l probabi l i t i e s f o r s p i l l s o r i g i n a t i n g a t t h e p roduc t i on p l a t f o rms do no t necessa r i l y r e f l e c t t h e r i s k s o f s p i l l s du r i ng t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . For these reasons, ana l ys t s a re caut ioned aga ins t bas ing judgments s o l e l y upon c o n d i t i o n a l ~ r o b a b i l i t i e s .
Summary of the Proposed Action and the Major Alternatives - The proposed action i s t o lease 429 t r ac t s on the Outer
Continental Shelf off the Norton Sound coast. The study area for th i s analysis includes a1 1 of these t rac ts and extends from lat i tude 62 degrees N t o 56 degrees 5 minutes N , and from longitude 159 degrees 24 minutes i4 t o 169 degrees 7 minutes W .
The study area and the proposed t rac ts are shown on a blercator projection in f igure 1. The subdivisions of the proposed t r ac t s are shown in figure 2 . The launch points, which represent p la t fo rm locations, pipe1 ine routes, and tanker routes, are shown in figure 3. Two oil transportation scenarios were analyzed for the proposed action and each of three t r ac t deletion alternatives, In t h e f i r s t scenario (referred t o as "onshore"), a1 1 the oil from the lease area wculd be piped t o a terminal onshore (P8) near Nome, Alaska. From there, the oil w o u l d be transported south by tankers o u t of the study area. I n the second scenario, (referred to as "offshore") a l l the oil would be piped t o a n offshore terminal ( P 1 1 ) near the center of the lease area. Fran there the oil would be tankered south o u t of the study area. The three t rac t deletion alt2rnatives a r e as follows:
1. northern t r ac t s deleted ( t r ac t groups A and B ) 2. southern t r ac t s d e l e t ~ d ( t r ac t groups E , F , and G ) 3 . eastern t r ac t s deleted ( t r ac t groups B, D, and G )
For the offshore transportation scenario of the east deletion alternative, the oil from the remaining t rac ts i s piped t o a terminal near the southeast edge of the lease area ( P 2 ) and tankered south from there.
Envi ronmental Resources
The locations o f 19 categories o f biological resources (or targets, as they are designated in th i s paper) were digitized i n the same coordinate system, or base nap, as that used i n trajectory simulations. Targets were selected by BLM analysts. Maps showing the digitized targets are shown i n appendix A , figures A - 1 t o A-19. The m o n t h l y sensit ivity of these targets was also recorded so tha t , for example, a target such as migrating birds could be contacted by simulated o i l sp i l l s only when the birds would be in the area. Mid-boundary and seabird foraging areas 1 through 5 were given two sets of seasonal vulnerabilities (surrmer and winter). I n t h i s analysis, the winter season includes the months December t o Nay, and the summer season includes the months June t o November. The targets are l is ted below:
Average shorefast ice zone 1 (winter) AS:arage shorefast ice zone 2 (wi nter) Average shorefast ice zone 3 (winter) Average shorefast ice zone 4 (winter)
Average s h o r e f a s t i c e zone 5 ( w i n t e r ) Average s h o r e f a s t i c e zone 6 ( w i n t e r ) Mid-boundary a r e a 1 (summer) blid-boundary a r e a 2 ( sumner ) :did-boundary a r e a 3 (summer) Nid-boundary a r e a 4 ( s u m e r ) Yid-boundary a r e a 5 ( sumner ) Mid-boundary a r e a 1 ( w i n t e r ) Mid-boundary a r e a 2 ( w i n t e r ) ? l id-boundary a r e a 3 ( w i n t e r ) Yid-boundary area 4 ( w i n t e r ) Mid-boundary a r e a 5 ( w i n t e r ) S e a b i r d f o r a g i n g area 1 ( sumner ) S e a b i r d f o r a g i n g area 2 ( s u m n e r ) S e a b i r d f o r a g i n g a r e a 3 ( s u m e r ) S e a b i r d f o r a g i n g a r g a 4 (summer) S e a b i r d f o r a g i n g a r e a 5 ( sumner ) S e a b i r d f o r a g i n g area 1 ( w i n t e r ) S e a b i r d f o r a g i n g a r e a 2 ( w i n t e r ) S e a b i r d f o r a g i n g a r e a 3 ( w i n t e r ) Seab i r d f o r a g i n g a r e a 4 ( w i n t e r ) S e a b i r d for-aging a r e a 5 ( w i n t e r ) K i n g c r a b f i s h e r y a r e a ( s u m e r ) Yukon D e l t a e n t r a i n m e n t a r e a ( s u r m e r ) Gray whal e f e e d i ng a r e a and h y p o t h e t i c a l Bowhead
w h a l e m i g r a t i o n c o r r i d o r (summer and w i nter )
Because the t r a j e c t o r y node l s i m u l a t e s a n o i l s p i l l a s a p o i n t , most t a r g e t s have been g i v e n a n a r e a l e x t e n t s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r t h a n they a c t u a l l y occupy. F o r example, some s h o r e l i n e t a r g e t s e x t e n d a s n o r t dis tance o f f s h o r e ; t h i s al lows the model t o s i m u l a t e a s p i l l t h a t a p p r o a c h e s 1 a n d , makes p a r t i a1 c o n t a c t , w i t h d r a w s , and c o n t i n u e s on i t s way.
To p r o v i d e a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s f o r l and o r l and -based targets, the model i n c l u d e s a f e a t u r e t h a t a1 lows s u b d i v i d i n g t h e c o a s t l i ne i n t o land segments. F i g u r e 4 shows the c o a s t l i n e d i v i d e d i n t o 24 segmen t s of approx imate ly equa l l e n g t h . The open sea hounda r i es were a1 s o d i v i d e d i n t o 10 segments of approxi rna te l y q u a 1 l e n g t h .
Estimated guantity of Oil Resources
Considerable uncertainty exists in estimating the volume of oil t h a t will be discovered and produced as a result of an OCS lease sale. A question exis ts as to whether oil sp i l l risk calculations should be based upon a single estimate of volume, or should consider volume as a random variable and include some probability di stribution for volume in computing o i l sp i l l occurrence probabilities. The choice may depend upon how the results are t o be incorporated i n t o the benefitlrisk analysis.
Benefits and risks (as well as many environmental impacts), are functions o f t h e volume of o i l , and are not independent of each other. Greater risks are associated with greater volu~nes o f oil and greater economic benefits. If benefits are evaluated by assuming production o f a specific amount of o i l , then the corresponding risks should be stated i n a conditional form such as , " the risks are ..., given that the volume i s ..." I f benefits are evaluated for a number of discrete volumes, then risks should likewise be calculated for t h e same volumes. Any statements about the 1 ikel i hood of the presence of a particular volume o f o i l apply equally well t o the likelihood of the corresponding benefits and risks.
The estimated o i l resources used for o i l sp i l l risk calculations in th i s report correspond t o those used by BLM i n preparing the draf t € IS f o r the l ease sale. These estimates are based on those derived by the Conservation Division, USGS fo r the draf t € I S in August 1980. A 14 percent chance exis ts that oil i s present in economical l y recoverable quantities in the sale area. If o i l i s present, then a n estimated conditional mean value o f 480 mil lion barrels, distributed among the various subareas, may occur. For the deletion a1 ternatives, the prohabili t y of commercial oil being present was assumed t o remain the same (14 percent), b u t the quantities remaining were 250, 480, and 98 mil l i o n barrels for t h e north, south, and east deletion alternatives, respectively. These conditional mean estimates are also based on those derived by the Conservation Division, USGS for the draft EIS in August 1980. Note that i f the south deletion alternative i s chosen, the remaining t r ac t s have a resource estimate equal t o the amount predicted for the ent i re sale area. These southern t r ac t s are be1 ieved t o be gas prone instead o f o i l bearing. We cannot overemphasize t h a t these estimates are based on the assumption that oil i s present; i f i t i s not present ( a n 86 percent probahil i t y ) , then, obviously, no o i l sp i l l risks exist . The remainder o f t h i s analysis i s designed t o answer the question, "'dhat are the risks i f o i l i s found?"
Probabi 1 i ty of Oi l spi 11 s Occurri ng
The probabil i t y o f oi l sp i l l occurrence (given that oil i s present) i s based on the fundamental assumption that real i s t i c estimates of future sp i l l frequencies can be based on past OCS experience. This analysis i s Pased on the assumption that sp i l l s occur independently of each other as a Poisson process and that the sp i l l ra te i s dependent upon the volune o f oil produced or transported. This l a s t assumption - that sp i l l rate i s a function of the volume of oil handled - m i g h t be modified on the basis of s ize , extent, frequency, or duration of the handling. In the case o f tanker transport, for example, the number of port ca l l s and the number of tanker-years have been contemplated (Stewart, 1976, and Stewart and Kennedy, 1973). This analysis i s based o n volume o f oil handled, s ince a1 1 other estimates must ultimately be derived fran th i s quantity.
This analysis includes a1 1 types of sp i l l s resulting from OCS leasing. I t considers not only we1 1 blowouts, b u t also other accidents on platforms, transportation of the oil t o shore, and, in some cases, further transportation fron a n intermediate terminus t o refineries. Incl ud i ng a1 1 of these risks a1 lows the risks of the proposed OCS leasing t o be cmpared t o those o f other alternatives, such as importing o i l . Previous 3SGS d a t a on OCS accidents, (Dannenberger, 1975; 1980) are included i n the data base, b u t cmprise only a part of the data,
I n past model runs, on ly spil 1s larger than 1,000 barrels ( b b l ) were considered. This report examines, when the d a t a pemi t , sp i l l s i n two s i z e ranges: 10,000 barrels or greater, and 1,000 barrels or greater (which i s included i n the f i r s t category). To place these sizes i n a rough perspective, s p i l l s in the largest category are usual l y associated with catastrophies such as 1 arge blowouts or shipwrecks. Accidents in the second category typical ly include those and other serious events, such as structural fa i lures and tanker col l i sions. The choice of size range t o be uszd depends upon the analysis being performed. I f , for example, a particular impact could occur only from a massive o i l s l ick , then o n l y large s p i l l s would be examined.
Accident rates for platforms on the U.S. OCS were derived fr3m USGS accident f i l e s (USGS, 1973a and b ) , and from 3SI;S production records (USGS, 1980). For spi 11s of 1,000 barrels or larger, the period from 1964 t o 1979 was used. Between 1964 and 1979, four s p i l l s of 10,000 barrels or larger occurred, and nine sp i l l s (including the four) of 1,000 barrels o r larger occurred. During t h i s period, 3.S. OCS oil production was 4,386 million barrels.
USGS accident f i l e s a re a1 so a major source of da t a f o r pipeline accidents. As with p la t foms , the period from 1964 t o 1979 was used f o r s p i l l s of 1,000 barre ls o r larger . USGS f i l e s (1979a and b ) include two s p i l l s of over 13,000 barrels and seven s p i l l s (including the two) o f over 1,000 barre ls . Devanney and Stewart (1976) report s ix additional pipe1 ine spil l s , b u t a1 1 except one (1,020 barrel s ) occurred i n coastal channel s. Adding t h i s one sp i l l to the USSS data gives a to ta l of eight s p i l l s o f 1,000 barre ls o r larger . Since nearly a1 1 U.S. OCS production has been transparted t a shore by pipelines, the same production s t a t i s t i c s used fo r p l a t f o n s c a n be applied t o the pipeline accident data.
Accident data and oil t ransportat ion data f o r tankers i s not maintained by the USGS, so tanker accident ra tes must be derived f r m published l i t e r a tu r e . The tanker accident r a t e f o r s p i l l s o f 1,000 barre ls or l a rger , used in recent OSTA models, i s from Stewart (1976): 178 s p i l l s in 45,941 million barre ls of oil transported. No detai led l i s t i n g o f these s p i l l s ex i s t s in the pub1 i shed 1 i t e ra ture . However, Devanney and Stewart (1974) exami ned tanker s p i l l s on major t rade routes, and reported 99 s p i l l s greater t h a n 42,000 gallons (1,000 ba r r e l s ) , 87 s p i l l s greater t h a n 100,000 gallons, and 32 s p i l l s greater than 1,000,000 gallons. Interpolat ion o f t h i s data gives about 53 spi l 1s greater than 10,000 bar re l s , or about 54 percent of the 1,000-barrel spi 1 1 ra te . This estimate can be pa r t i a l l y confirmed by l i s t i n g s of s p i l l s in Oil s p i l l I n t e l ligence Report (1979 and 1980) where, o u t o f 22 s p i l l s of crude o i l from bulk ca r r i e r s reported for 1975 and 1979, and known or estimated t o be l a rger t h a n 1 ,000 barre ls , 15, or 68 percent, were larger than 10,000 barre ls . Therefore, a r a t i o o f 60 percent of the 1,000-barrel r a t e appears reasonab 1 e , g i v i ng an estimated s p i l l r a t e f o r 10,000 barrel and larger s p i l l s of 107 per 45,941 million barrels .
In summary, the sp i l l r a t e s used in t h i s report are :
Sp i l l s per S i l l i on barre ls 1,000+ b b l 10,000+ b b l
P I atforms 2.05 0.31
P i pel i nes 1.82 0.46
Tankers 3.87 2.32
Are these rates applicable t o Alaska, s ince most of the exist ing data a re from more temperate c l irnates? About 400 mil l i o n barrel s of petroleum have been produced from platforms i n Cook I n l e t , piped to shore, and transported south by tankers; no s p i l l s of 1,000 ~ a r r e l s or greater have occurred. Applying the s p i l l r a tes used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s , we find a 10-percent chance of no s p i l l s i n producing and
transporting 400 m i l lion barrels in th i s nanner. Thus, the data base fo r Alaska (400million barrels) i s st511 too small t o say, with a high degree of confidence, that the Alaskan sp i l l rat2
. differs from the rate for the rest of the U.S. OCS. This conclusion, however, will need t o be reviewed i f the commendable safety record of Alaskan operations continues for a longer period.
Spill frequency estimates were calculated for production and transportation of o i l from Sale 57. Table 1 shows the expected number o f sp i l l s and the most l ikely number of sp i l l s t h a t will occur during the expected production l i f ? of the lease area. Figure 5 shows the probabil i ty t h a t 9, 1, 2 , . . . , N spi 11s w i 1 1 occur.
Oilspill Trajectory Sirnulitions - Oil sp i l l t ra jector ies were sirnulatzd by the Rand Corporation,
Santa Monica, Cal i f., usi ng the i r three-dinensional model for estuaries and coastal seas (Liu a n d Nelson, 1 9 7 7 ) . The application of t h i s model was devei oped as part of the 3LM environmental s tudies program in the aering Sea. Twenty launch points were selected representing p l a t f o r m 1 ocations, pi pel i nes, and tanker routes in the s t u d y area. I n t h i s analysis, the location of the center o f mass of each hypothetical o i l sp i l l was reported every 12 hours. J i l sp i l l t ra jector ies werz simulated under three se ts of environmental conditions. The f i r s t s e t , which included the months December t o Yay, was tenned the ice-cover condition. During th i s period, Norton Sound i s covered by ice floes. For each launch point, 10 o i 1 s p i l l s were simulated under di f f e re f~ t weather scenarios. The second set was an ice-free condition which included the months June t o August. Because of t h e variabil i t y of t h e weather during t h i s period, 26 hypothetical o i l s p i l l s were launched from each s i t e . The third se t was also an ice-free condition including the months S?pter;~ber t o November. During th is period, ten hypothetical oilspi1 1s were launched from each s i t e . The t ra jec tor ies calculated by Rand were transmitted t o the U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va., on computer-compatible tapes. The x,y coordinates o f the trajectcrries in the ftand grid system were FoRverted t o the USGS grid system by a l inear t ransfonat ion. As the simulated o i l sp i l l was moved, any contacts with targets were recorded. Spill novement continued until the spi l l h i t land, moved off the map, or aged more than 30 days.
The t ra jec tor ies simulated by the model represent only hypothetical pathways of oil sl icks and d o not involve any direct consideration of cleanup, dispersion, or weathering processzs which could determine the quantity or quai i t y of oil that .might eventually come i n contact with targets. A n implicit analysis o f weathering a n d decay can be considered by noting the age of
Table 1. -- Oilsp i l l probabil i ty estimates f o r spil 1s greater than 1,000 and 10,000 barre ls result ing f rom OCS Lease Sale 57.
Prouosed a c t i o n (onshore and o f f shore scenarios)
North delet ion (onshore and offshore scenarios)
S o u t n delet ion (onshore and o f f s h o r e scenarios )
East delet ion (onsho re and offshore scenaricz)
Expected number Yos t l i k e l y o f s p i l l s (mean). number of
s p i l l s (mode). >1,000 >10,000 >1,000 >10,000
Probabil i t y of one or more spil Is >1,000 >10,000
" l o 7 n '7 0 0 L 5
L Q OJ %-c
simulated o i l sp i l l s when they contact targets. For th i s analysis, three time periods were selected: 3 days, t o represent diminished toxicity of the s p i l l ; 10 days, t o allow for deployment of cleanup equipment; a n d 30 days, t o represent the diff icul ty of tracking or locating sp i l l s a f te r t h i s time.
When calculating probabilities from Yonte Carlo t r i a l s i t i s desirable t o estimate the error associated with t h i s technique. The calculation of the standard deviation s, for a particular - prooability p i s calculated as follows: - where N = number o f t r i a l s . The shape of th i s distribution approxizates the normal curve, thus, table 2 shows, for the 90-percent confidence level of t h i s distribution, values o f s as a function of p and N . When comparing two probabilities; the investigator ' s h o u l d - a1 so t e s t whether the two values are significantly different from each other. Figure 5 shows the results o f t h i s significance t e s t , based on the formula above ( N = 46, 90-percent confidence level ) . Points lyi ng within the shaBed portion of the g r a p h are n o t significantly different from each other.
Each entry i n tables 3 , 4 , and 5 represents the probability (expressed as percent chance) tha t , i f a spi l l s t a r t s from a certain launch point, i t wil 1 contact a particular target within 3 , 10, or 30 days, respectively. Tables 5 , 7 , and 8 present simil a r probabilities for l a n d and sea segments. These conditional probabilities a l l o w for the possibility t h a t the targets may no t be vulnerable t o o i l sp i l l s for the en t i re year: a target t h a t i s vulnerable for only 1 month, for example, could have a conditional probability no higher than about 1/12.
Combined Analysis of Oilspill Occurrence and g i T Z i T 7 I r a j e c f ~ i o n s -
Data i n figure 5 indicate the probabilities of different numbers of o i l sp i l l s occurring. Tables 3 t o 8 indicate the probabilities that targets or land or sea segments will be contacted, given that an o i l sp i l l occurs. Combining these two se t s of probabilities yields estimates of the chances that o i l sp i l l s will occur and contact targets or land segments.
A c r i t i c a l d i fference e x i s ts between the condi t i onal probabilities calculated i n the previous section and t h e overall probabilities calculated i n t h i s section. Condi t i o n a l probabilities depend o n l y on t h e winds and currents i n the study area -- elements over which the decisionmaker has no control. Overall p r o ~ a u i l i t i e s , on the other hand, will depend not only 3 n
W W h d C * d
. a .
a o o
*r Si ZE It SZ 01 02 SZ SZ 61 51 S I 01 S 5 1 S u O Z 02 I E u u u u u u u u u u u u U u u u ~ ~ ~ ~ u
u U IJ 2 L 1 0 9 1 1 2 1 I I 1 1 1 O ! i O S 2 1 T u U u u U u U U U U U U U U U U U U , U U U U u U U U U U U U U U u U U U U U U U U U U U U u U U U U U U u U U U u U U u U U U U
u u u O P O b O Z u u 4 01 U Z O E SI 0 1 " S u u u u u u u u o [ u u u g u u u u u u u U U u U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U ~ U U U U U U U U u U U U U U U U U U U U u u u u u u u u u c 5 Z Z I Z I I I u u u u U I U 6 E 1 E ~ U 8 U U U z 2 U U U U U U U U U U U ~ U u U U u U U U U U u U U U U
U OZ S SC ST 52 SZ 02 51 Sl DZ SZ 01 S1 51 U S S 1 5 U U ' J O Z " u u u u 5 S U u u u u 5 O I S Z 5 b U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U S O E S E 5 U U u U U U u U U U U U U u U u U U U u u u u u u u o c j u u u u u 5 I O S O I S U u u u 2 9 1 2 E 7 E 2 E U U U U U U U U U U U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ u u u u ~ u u u u u u u u u ~ o ~ u " u u u u t b l u u u u u 5 1 2 D Z O E u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u ~ u . u u u IJ u u I l t O S Z T E I u 9 9 1 2 1 0 5 8 1 t ~ u u IJ U U U U U U u u U U U U U u u U U U u U U U U u U U U u U u u u u u o ~ ~ ~ u ~ u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u U U U U U U U u u . U u U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U u U U U u U U U U U U U U U u U U u U U u U U U ~ U U U u U U U U U U U U I E U U U U U U E q U U E U U U
O Z d 6 l d 8 ld LId 91d S l d Cld E I d ZId I l d Old 6d 8d i d 9d Sd Bd Ed Z d Id UOC1P301 1 f ! d ~ le3133410d4i
P a q aleqH L P J ~ O w n s e l tag uoqnA
-urns 9 ~ ~ 3 6u!] ' l u l l 4 S 'Jod 'PqS ' l u l f l b . J O j 'P9S 'lulM E ' J o j 'PqS 'lU!R 2 * J O j 'Pqs ' lU !H I ' J o j 'PqS
*urns 5 . . ~ o j - p q s *trnS g * ~ o j 'pqs 'runs . ~ n j ' p q ~ 'UnS 2 . J O j 'PqS *wns 1 * J O d 'Pqs
'3U!Y, s 'PuO 'PlW ' lu!M b *'P'JO 'P!W *7u!M E 'Pug 'P!W 'lulM 2 'Pug *P!N *3U!M I 'Pug * P ! Y
'II'" S ' P " B p C ~ 'wnS P 'PWl 'P!W -anS E 'pug ' p ! ~ *tiins 2 ' p ~ t g - p ! ~ 'wns 1 'P"S 'P!W
g auoz a31 auoz a31 auoz 331
E atloz a21 2 auoz a31 I auoz a31
p u e l
E m n E c r c o r m e ~ m m c r o o m E = m r 4 E c E r C ~ W O 01 n-4 ~n m e m 4 4 m 2
m N W C E e E C E b w 4 h C C E m m a E C C E C E C C E C r D r D N 0. n W J H e m
V1
6 4 C C E E G C C T E C = E E W - E ~ O h m 0 C O N E C n d A d -
.- 0 -
*r C N r E E c e c rnn c- C N e m - E- G + CUY E O ~ O ~ ~ N N N
m a 4 N 4 T '2 - a m m C E E e E C C C C d C T ) + U E C N d W C 0 3 d N ElnLnhNNOLPLn C N r L u n 'C
N rrrr rrl m r
the physical conditions, b u t also on the course of action chosen by the decisionmaker, that i s , choosing t o sel 1 or n o t t o sel l the lease t rac ts .
' T w o o i l sp i l l sizes are considered i n t h i s analysis, those greater than 1,000 barrels and those greater than 10,000 barrels. Tables 9 and 10 show :he probabilities (expressed as percent chance) of one or more o i l sp i l l s (greater than 1,000 barrels and greater than 10,000 barrels) the most l ikely number of o i l sp i l l s , and the expected number of o i l sp i l l s occurring and contacting targets within periods of 3 , 10, and 30 days, over the expected production l i f e of the proposed lease t r ac t s , for onshore and ' offshore transportation scenarios, respectively. Tables 11 t o 16 show similar probabilities for the north, south, and east deletion alternatives (onshore and of fshore transportation scenarios). Tables 1 7 t o 24 show similar probabilities t o l a n d and sea segments for the proposed :ease t r ac t s , north, south, and east deletion a1 tcrnatives (onshore and offshore transportation scenarios).
The overal 1 probabi 1 i t i e s are a1 so shown graphical ly in appendices B and C . Figures 8-1 through 3-41 are histograms which show probabi 1 i t i e s of 1, 2 , . . . N s p i l l s occurring and contacting specific targets within periods of 3 , 10 , and 30 days. Figures C - 1 through C-6 indicat?, through c i rc les superimposed o n maps of t h e coast1 i ne, the probabil i t i e s of one or nore spil 1s occurring and contacting land segments within 3 , 10, and 30 days, for b o t h scenari 0s.
3i scussion of Results
Assuming that oil i s spil led in the lease area, the p r ~ b a b i l i t y o f a sp i l l contacting land within 3 days i s minimal for each launch point. These probabili t ies increase as s p i l l s are tracked up t o 30 days; however, t h e chancss of o i l contacting l a n d are s t i l l no higher than 37 percent (see launch point P4, table 5 ) . Host o f the s p i l l s head i n a westerly direction, contacting the segments a l o n g t h e open sea boundary. Even launch point P8, located very close t o shore near Nome, Alaska, has o n l y a 25-percent chance of contacting l a n d within 30 days. Any s p i l l s that would come ashore would probably a1 so be highly weathered. The shorefast i ce zones also have 1 i t t l e chance of being h i t by an o i l spi l 1 (assuming one occurs) excep t by spil 1s 1 aunched from s i t e s P3 and P4 . The spi 1 1 contact probabilities for ice zones 4 and 5 a re in the range of 40 t o 50 percent (see table 5 ) from these launch points for 3-day travel times.
If a1 1 the t r a c t ; are 1 eased and o i 1 i s d i scovered somewhere i n the lease area, the prooabi 1 i t y that one or nore spil 1 s ( o f 1,000 barrels and larger) wi 1 l occur and c ~ n t a c t l a n d ( w i t h i n a 30-day
tClL -0 0
- L W - a* *a- O E - * VI ¶ E E 0
a 0.- L'O.r I, 0 W Y lrJ
v c Y Y a J
L 0 3 U 0 n o Vl
x L 0 CI EL= c 3 0 w a*-
X Z Y Icuu m 0 u
W L L -c CJ 0 a J m > = V o m c - r 2 - m 5 - a l u L U T W 4
U % Z Y C-rrrJ L 0 Y O urn r L- mu, m- C r nr" .- 0
CU m m u m rn roc - " 4, C m
0 3 ur L v VI"J m arajr L E C U C 2 rrf fe
. X T L 0 Cl*
U h C -- CJ L-QLvl V Y L rrf
.-a- 2 u- 08.- .- V -A O W .- vr c: a o h m D o u o d L i 5 L eu-c
I I
I E 1 .a 1 V l w I WE I a 1 . 0 0 1
t a x O f
m a 25% u L
A I L
I E . 5 I ,a,
: z = t o w
w I 0 0 I gzz
m 0 n ?+ 0 m L w AIL
-'t lC m o o C
- ~ m o .r W b - CLD .- L ul E*- "J
Y C ~ E C W
bv.41:: z m u
W U C L U > O 0 ww-
C L O U W x L m C W 3* 0 L a g 0
C C T - 3 o* l J vr
E -v L 10 C I C a J L g m 7u e, 0 m - a GAY) L V U ~ O 3 0z
u 0 nvl E E L = a-a o U i, L m =1 aJ-01t P- c -- .r C VI
VL C L I J J m w u
m Q) w'b-u > alO E- vr o u r n L U r r J w w = L 3 J L h= c O * ; m u w - - - m e h c
W I - - t c .2 2 k .: 0.'- a 4 4 ° C u al - u- . - u o 0 nco 3 5 0-
g E = = tu 4 L C r O L CTI' - 0 s z c
1 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n + - - - ~ O W ~ ~ ~ U W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ L L L L L L L I L L ~ ~ ~ ~
Y C C C C C t C C C c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O L n ~
CI O = O ~ E S ~ ~ ~ G G ~ G ~ G ~ L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L U x N N N N N N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =n w C
L rn0
m = ~ ~ W U ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 3 W W U 3 J W W j v 3 3 ~ U W W C Y Q m u u u u u u'-'---.-.-.*I.~.-.,.~~ r r a 3 ~ a n a ~ a .
r ~ ~ ~ - - - - T Z r ~ f z L T f z ~ m z m V ) L O V 1 V ) w v l m Y * U - Y L
i Z m w w O O a O O a O o O 0 O O O a O O O O O O a o a O O o O o 0
I00 I O f 0
V I Q S C = E = C c E t E?JN E d E - U r n E E E E C C - E C C r * E r n -4 0 d
L w n l a yr)
r t y y q a y ~ ? y ? 7 ? o ~ y ? y y ~ ? ? ? ~ y ? y q ? q ? y .- m r .b, G 3 w d 3 0 0 0 a 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 w 3 0 u VlE .- -
.. m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f i - C a g ~ " " " 2 p = 4 V 3 p J J L L L L L L L L L L a d , r r J C C C L C C C 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 L D L E ~ ~ ~ ~ Z S G G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ L L L L L L L L ~ L L ~ U 3 N N N N N N C ..
-b h m o o - - L a l . - w r e o cam *- - cn E- L 3
a = = ? 1 3 5 1 o w * - U E O U vl Y U
L U f C 0 m w 0
CL 0 .- a x L U E W 3 5 0 Y
W 2 L b J = , 0 O Y G 3.
VL --3 L c W C W D u m > L r o u m - c-v) aJ U P l u L 3 3 2 A E) 37- E e L m y e * G U u o L La w - m m n- E e
C .r .C
6 . .
u 4.2 U C E C .* .- .r = 3 3
- *Lo . . . L L L 0 0 3
L L L LL . . . VYYV 3-0 romv,
C E .- . m - c m w u-r .- s 3 R
m 182 t o 1 d n I 0 I AIL 1 0 .
c y l r c m o o Z L W .- at rC aq a- V ) f - * a c e 0 L 0 -- ow.- L E m u 2 LZ s 5 0 w - 0 u C O vl
w X L ear a c 0 0
w PI- r c r z u O U U ra
L-vr L U 0;ru
-0 tr w 0 0 0 = E L L 0-m o U u = L V I m w - mu- =- E '*. .- * 5
9 9 oa
00
*+
do . . O Q
0 0
m u
9 9 00
0 0
r-l E
- 0 . . 00
00
;p 8
?? 00
a 0
c C
9 9 00
a o
c c
m e Fr) m
h u 7
C .- % g L ET
0 r I% U L w a
Y 0
a
c a E c,
VI V1 dl F
.c cr - 3
Y) *r C
B 0 w V1
3 c a3
k! .2Ls 0
5 5 m m u
0 c E fd E w u l rn L w VL u h e m a m L m a
r-l I1
E * - * z U
.IC
u 3 E aJ m u u L U w Rl m.u C
m o U
0 w
c L 2 E u
L u lo YI w w - e 0
II 'C
' C 0 . . w u 0 E
O O O Q O O
C .- . % r m w u-f .- s Z Z a 01
3 i gn 1 4 - a I 0 I AIL I n.
-b rc vr 0 0 C
,-La. *- w r 0 E Z a .- .- vr z- L
w Z r % L 0 0 o w - u E m u vr u U
L U Z E 0 0 3 0
n 0 .- O X L c l c m a m 0 r)
O O L kt.= 0 o u u a
VI -7 L C w c o m U r n = - I ,
o u fu - G A L - W u_Ou L . - a 0
o 0 nz E = L m w - 3 m c U u o L vl W - m c l n- r C .' -- *r m no m m m u s 3bU w m o = > vr 0 .- VI L U v aJ u L 3 J ? Q E E L x 3 m u aJc w
En- * = 03 VI - .r cl laLr '-a L 0 u .- 3 .- .--u.U - U O " U 0,- Awl 3 - 0-w S E C 0 l W L W a J w l a r z m
U Y d J I
VI C - - m ar m u
-'C 'C m o w C
- L w O .- a l b - nn .- L m E%- m a E
a l c r m L O U o w . - vr E m u
Y U C L U X 0 0 w 7 . -
C O Y W X L m E al "u 0 L
"-2s g O d U vl
E -w L rn r n E e J L 2 a =-u - 3 0 3 - 3
2 - L n L U C J U 0 u a z
u 0 3vl r E ru, a l - ' U l c U 420 L VI 0- 3,Cn a- E c .- *f ." m Uc, V) m m u 3 *
W Y - u a l w a r > VI 0 .- V l L U U 0 w L 3 3 _ 2 2c"S al= 4 v 9-
% E r n vl rr .- aJ w L r .-A L O u -- X .* .-- u w - u w .F4 0 -
t ravel time) i s 51 percent f o r the onshore transportat ion scenario and 53 percent f o r the offshore transportat ion scenario. These probabi l i t ies are reduced by about one-half i f s p i l l s of 10,000 barre ls and l a rger are considered. Land segments 19 and 2 1 , located on the nor th shore of Norton Sound, a re t h e most l ike ly t o be h i t by s p i l l s . The southern and eastern shores have l i t t l e chance of b e i n g contacted by a n oi l s p i l l ; probabi l i t ies of one o r more con tac ts ( s p i l l s of 1,000 barre ls or larger) t o these segments are a l l l e s s than 5 percent. The most l ike ly f a t e of s p i l l s i s t o travel o u t of Nortan Sound, Segment 30, which contains the eastern t i p o f S t . Lawrence Island, has a 33 t o 38 percent chance of being contacted by one o r nore oil spil 1s ( o f 1,000 barrels or l a rger ) within 30 days travel time.
The t a rge t s iflost l ike ly to be effected by o i l s p i l l s are: mid-boundary arza 1 , summer (39 percent chance of one o r Jore s p i l l s , 1,000 barre ls or l a rger , 30 days t r a v e l ) ; mid-boundary area 5 , winter (53 percent); king crab f ishing area, summer ( 3 3 percent); 3nd the gray whale area (SO percent) . (To see the " fu l l ' ' r i sks t o these t a rge t s , these v a l u e s should be multipl i e d by the 14-percent chance that o i l w i l 1 be found.) The seabird foraging areas sliew d i s t i nc t differences i n spi 1 l contact probabi I i t i e s f o r summer and winter. For example, during the sumer , seabi r3 foraging area 3 h a s a 32 percent chance of being contacted by one o r inore s p i l l s ( o f 1,000 barrels or l a rger , 30 days t r a v e l ) . However, during the winter, t h i s probability i s reduced t o l e ss than 0.5 percent.
The north delet ion a l t e rna t ive reduces the r isks t o land by approxinately 40 percznt, The south delet ion a1 ternat ive poses the same risks as the proposed action, s ince only g a s , not o i l , i s assumed present i n the deleted t r a c t s . The eas t delet ion a1 t e rna t ive , which h a s the lowest nstirnate of o i l , reduces r isks t o l a n d by approxinately 30 percent .
Conclusions
This analysis indicates t ha t i f oil ex i s t s i n commercial quant i t ies i n the OCS Lease Sale 57 area , ( a 1 4 percent chance), 2.8 o i l s p i l l s of 1,000 barre ls or larger a r e expected t o occur i n the Norton Sound lease area. The probability t ha t one or more o i l s p i l l s of 1,000 barrels or larger will occur i s 94 percent; the probability of one or nore s p i l l s occurring and contacting land within 30 days i s 51 t o 53 percent , depending upon the t ransportat ion method chosen. For s p i l l s 10,000 barre ls or larger , t hese probabil i t i c , arc rzidced t o 26 t o 27 percent.
The south delet ion a1 t w n a t i v e poszs the same o i l s p i l l r i sks as the proposed a c t i o n . T h e north delet ion a l t e rna t ive reduces r i sks to land by about 40 percent, w h i l e the east del2tion a l ternat ive
. reduces these r isks by a b o u t 3i3 percent (both a l tzrnat ives also reduce the amount of o i l ) . Very l i t t l e difference ex i s t s , a s f a r as oil spi 1 1 r i sks are concerned, setween the onshore and offshore transportat ion scmarios .
Refe rences C i t e d - Danenberger , E.P. , 1976, O i l s p i l l s , 1971-1975, Gulf of
7 e x i c o O u t e r C o n t i n e n t a l She1 f : U.S. Geolog ica l Survey C i r c u l a r 741, 47 p.
1980, O u t e r C o n t i n e n t a l S h e l f o i l and g a s m w o u t s : U.S. Geo log ica l Survey Open-Fil e Repor t
80-101, 1 5 ~ .
Devanney, 3 . W . , 111, and S t e w a r t , R.J., 1974, A n a l y s i s of o i l s p i l l s t a t i s t i c s , Apr i l 1974: M a s s a c h u s e t t s I n s t i t u t e of Technology (Cambridge) r e p o r t no. :dITSG-74-20 p repa red f o r t h e Council on Envi ranmenta l Q u a l i t y , 125 p.
Devanney, J.W,, I11 and s t e w a r t , R.J., 1976, The n o r t h e a s t and o f f s h o r e o i 1 : > d a r t i n g a l e , Inc . , P repa red f o r Brookhaven Nat ional L a b o r a t o r y , Upton, N.Y., 68 p.
L a n f e a r , K. J . , Smi th , R . A * , and S l a c k , J . R . , 1979, An i n t r o d u c t i on t o t h e o i 1 s p i 11 r i sk anal y s i s model : Proczed i ngs o f the O f f s h o r e Technology Conference , l l t h , Houstgn, Tex., 1979, OTC 3607, p . 2173-2175.
L a n f e a r , K.J. and Samuel s , N . B . , 1981, Documentat ion and u s e r ' s gu ide t o t h e U.S. Geo log ica l Survey o i l s p i l 1 r i s k a n a l y s i s zodel : o i l s p i l l t r a j e c t o r i e s and the c a l c u l a t i o n o f c o n d i t i o n a l probabi 1 i t i e s : 3 .S. Geol o g i c a l Survey Open-Fil e Repor t 81-316, 95 p.
L i u , S.K., and Nelson, A.a., 1977, A t h ree -d imens iona l model f a r e s t u a r i e s and c o a s t a l seas: volune V , t u r b u l e n t ene rgy program: T h e Rand C o r p o r a t i o n , R-2187-OWRT, S a n t a Yonica C a l i f . , 90 p.
Oil s p i 1 1 I n t e l l i g e n c e Repor t , 1979, I n t e r n a t i o n a l summary of 1978 s p i l l s ; V . 2 , No. 1 2 , March 23 , 1979, 20 p.
Oi l s p i l l I n t e l 1 i g e n c e R e p o r t , 1980, I n t e r n a t i o n a l sumnary o f 1979 s p i l l s : V , 3 , No. 2 1 , Yay 2 3 , 1980, 32 p.
Smi th , R . A . 9 S l a c k , J.R., Wyant, T . , and L a n f e a r , K.J., 1980, The o i l s p i l l r i s k a n a l y s i s nodel of the U.S. Geo log ica l Survey : U.S. Geo log ica l Survey Open-Fil e Repor t 80-587, 107 p.
S t e w a r t , R.J., 1975, A s u r v e y and c r i t i c a l r ev i ew of U.S. o i l s p i l l d a t a r e s o u r c e s w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n t o the t a n k e r l p i pel i ne c o n t r o v e r s y : Repor t t o t h e U. 5. Depa r tnen t o f t h e I n t e r i o r , ' da sh ing ton , D . C . , , Y a r t i n g a l e Inc., Camsridge, :4ass., 75 p.
S t e w a r t , R . J . , a n d Kennedy, M. B . , 1975, A n a n a l y s i s o f U.S. t a n k e r and o f f s h o r e petroleuo product ion o i l s p i 1 l a g e t h r o u g h 1975: Report t o O f f i c e of ?olicy Analys i s , U . S. Depar tgent o= the I n t e r i o r , Cont rac t Number 14-01-0001-2193, ,Yart i n g a l e Inc . , Cambridge, :4ass., l l l p . .
U .S. Ceol ogical Survey, 1979a, Accidents connected w i t h Federal o i l and g a s o p e r a t i o n s o n t h e Outer Cont inenta l S h e l f , G u l f of Yexic3, V. 1, 1956-1979: U.S. Geological Survey, Conszrvat ion D i v i s i o n , December 1979, 131 p .
1979b, Accidents connected with F e d e r a l o i l and gas o p e r a t i o n s on the Outer Cont inenta l S h e l f , P a c i f i c area: U.S. Geological Survey, Conservat ion D i v i s i o n , 10 p.
1980, O u t 2 r c o n t i n e n t a l she l f s t a t i s t i c s , caTTndar year 1979: 'J.S. Geological Survey, Conservat ion D i v i s i o n , 100 p .
Appendix A .-
E t' ill r m a, % 0
rn vl ill
a o rn L - 6. u
I
u rg a 0 0 'I-
0 C ? c .,--
w 5 LC,
Appendix 3 --..I--
z = ZAST 3CLETlQY - E
N L ~ ~ E R SF CONTACTS &ITFIN 3 D A Y S
F i g u r e 3-1 .--4lstoqr3ns snowing :he ?rgoani l i t i e s .lf s ~ e c ~ f i c iumoers 2 t J I ! 5 5 1 1 1 s (: ,300 3 a r e 1 5 ~ n d ;re:rr: 3cc.;rr? ng 3na :trntactrng ; and 35 3 r%ul : 3 f :j s.:e,3r3oos& 5c::an. ( 2 ; :ye l o e n 3elet:on l i t ? - ~ a t : r e , 3na , 3 ) t n e eas: de1et:on 31:5r?at1ve. for :ne 3nsnor3 :?3ns3or:atron s c e n a r ~ a .
3 EAST DELETION
2 5'-
NORTH 3ELEf!CN 2
NUf'49ER OF CONTACTS 'IdlT?!N 30 9.4YS
NUMSER OF CONTACTS WITulN ;O D A Y S
NUMBER OF CONTACT; WITY!N 3 D A Y S
Figure 3-2.--4istogr3ms s h o w i n g the ~rooaoll 1 t i e s sf j ? e c l f i e numoers 3f s i 1 s p i 11 s (1 ,000 ~ a r r f l s and greater) o c c a r n n g jnd contacting :c= zone s 1 s 2 result af (1) t h e ~ r m o s e d 3ct-on. ( 2 : the nor th jeletion a l :xna t ive , and \ 3 j :fie %st deletion dltcr~attve, 'or the snshore cranspor,atlon scenar~ a .
- - J EAST QELET!ON =I 3
NLiMSER OF CONTACTS 'NITYIN :0 D A Y S
NGMSER OF CONTACTS NITWN 3 DAYS - -
i i g u ~ 3-3.--disto--~rsms s n w l n g :he ~rsbaoilitles 3 f s o e c i i i c numDers 9i ? i : s ~ i 1 !s (1J00 mrreis 3nd jr l3ter) 3ccurnng - ?nd -3n t3c t i ng ma-oounaary jrea 1 ' . j u m e r ) as a r e s u l t OT , L J
:he ~ r o o o s a x r i o n , 2 : :ye I o r r h d e i e t i o n a l t i?rnat :ve, i n a ' 2 ) tne 5 a s t ;lelzc:3n ~izdrnatlve, for the onsnore ' . r a n s 3 0 ~ 3 t i o n scenar*o.
3 a EAST DELET!ON
9 NORTH 9ELFT!ON g
NUFBEFI CIF CONTACTS 1ITk!!N :0 D A Y S
NUt46EP CF CSNTACTS iVIT!+!N 3 DAYS --
Figure 3 - 4 . - - 4 i s t o g r m s showing the 3robaolllties o f suec i f i c numDers ~f o t 1 S D ~ 11 s ( ? ,300 5arrel s jnd jrezter) ccc4~rr1ng 3na contacting md-oounda--< ?ra? 2 ( s m e r ) 35 3 r e s u l t C I ~ , : j the ?reposed aczion, : 2 j :he I O R ~ Z e l e t i o n a i ternat: v e . and ( 3 ) t 3e e a s t 321S570fl 3 l t e r n a t l v e , f o r :he 3nshore t r3nSaorta t lon Scenario.
1 EAST 3 E L T ! C N
C d -
- . : 1 gure 3-5 .--Hi?togr?rns snowing -.ne rotr rani 1 i t i e s o f s p e c i f i c lumbers ,f
3 1 , s a i 11s j! ,3C10 3arrel s ina qreatzr ) accurrt no 3nd contdcring 112-soundary area 3 (silmer) as I. result 3f (!) the grsooseo ! c t -gn , ( 9 ) the n o r t h deletion alternative, and (31 :ae :as: deletion alternative. P J ~ :ne 3nshore transportation jcenarto.
PROPOSAL
NORTH OELETlON 6
= a EAST DE-LET!GN a
NUHBER OF CONTACfS 'NITY!N :0 DAYS
NbM6ER OF CaEITXCTS NITH!N 3 D A Y S
Figure 34 . - -Hi s t~q rm snowrng t7e : r m a i ~ t l 1 t r e s s f sqeclf?c Tunsers >i o i l s s i l l s (1,500 sdrr?ls and j rea te r ) occurnn? 2nd contact:ng md-oounadry jraa 4 , s ~ m e r ) rs 3 resui t 3 i , 1 ) :he Jraoased a c t l o n , , 2 ) t he lort(r ?ele+:Dn 3 l t z m t e . and ( 3 ) the ?as= 3eler:on j l t e r n a t i v e . =or rhe snsnore cranspo=atton scenar-o.
> - - 4 - -
a.3 4
s a.2 - .-. 7 a.. 1 = a.a +
2 NLMBER SF SZNTq iYS qY\T'i!N 30 D A Y 3
NUMSER OF CONTACTS 'NITuIN 3 D A Y S . - . .. . ~ - * r:gure 3-7.--Yistogrms snowing the ~rooaoilities s f j p e c i i i c numoers > f s i 1 x o i 11 s (: .JOO s a r r e l s and g r e a t z r ) occvrr?ng ?nd :sntact?ng 316-?oundarV 3r33 3 (sumer) a s i result o f ::; .Ae 3rmos2a 3c::3n. ( 2 7 :he nor'h de1et:on 31 t ? r ~ a t : v e , and : 3 ) :he ?as: :el?t?on ~lternatlve, igr :he snsnore t ransoortaL!on sc2nar:o.
EAST I)ELET!CN 3
L
NUMBE3 GF CONT.4CTS NITF!N 30 D A Y S
NUMBER OF CONTACTS 'A'ITHIN :0 D A Y S
NUMSER OF CONT.4CTS 8lTHlN 3 D A Y S
Figur? 3-4.--distograms showing t h e s r o o a D i l i t i e s o f spec i f i c numers o f l i 1 s p i 1 1 s ,1,300 barr2i s 3na greater) o c c z r r i ng and con tac t ing ? id -~ounda ry 31-23 ! ( w i n t e r ) 3s s r = s u l t 3 i i!) the ?roposel i c t ? o n , ( 2 ) Lne nor th d e l e t i o n a l t ~ r n a t : v e , 2nd (3) !be 2 3 s ~ d e l e t i o n 31 t e rna t i ue , f o r the Jnsnore : ransoor ta t ion scenar io.
=a EAST 3ELET!CN - -
r=I
Figure 3-3.--di s tograns snowing : y e ~ r m a b ~ 1 i t i e s ~i ;sec!iic ~ u n b e r s s f 3ils~il:s (:,300 lartels 2nd gr~aterj ~ c c u r r ' n y 2nd contact!ng m~a-oounoary 3rea 3 ( ~ u ~ ~ ? ! ? ) 3s 3 f e s i l i t 3 i ':!
: B.3 4 i? a.2
a , 4 &7 1 I,,, - 0.a 1
1 2 NUMBER I)? CCNTr lCTS N I T H N '0 D A Y S
NIjMSER OF CONTACTS WITHIN 3 S A Y S =igure 3-10.--dtstograms snowing :he arobabil~tles o f s p e c ~ f l c lumoers 3f
01 1 spill s (! ,000 3arrels and g r e a t e r ) occsrrl ng and contaczing nid-ooundary area 3 ( w l n t e r ) as a result sf ;1) the prtloosed act' ,:on, ( 2 ) t h e n o e b dclet:on t s rna t ive ,
irans40>iaf10n and ' 3 -be ; ~ ~ ~ a r i ~ i ? r - o n a i ternatire, far '!he inshore
3 EAST DELE'!CN z
1 2 NUMBE4 3F X C N T C T ; HIT!-I!N '0 DAYS
1 2 3 NUMBER OF ZCNTACTS HITU!N 3 O A Y S
''sure 3-11.--rli stograns ;now1 ng the Jrooaoi 1 ltr es st ;?eci ric ,\uiwcrs .J!
01 1 s ~ i 1 1s (: ,230 ~ar -$1 s and g rea te r ) cccurr: ng m a t o n t a c t l n g lid-sounaary 3raa 5 (wintcrl 3s 1 r e s u l t IF ;I) :he srozosed 2ct:on. 2 ) :9e ~ o e h del?r,:on j l t e r n a t ~ v e , and ( 3 ) :ye 22s: Aelet~on altemartve. 'or :he 2nsnore t r3nsgotTJt:on szznar io .
2 EAST DELCilCN ;?
I NUMBE2 OF CON7.4CTS VVITYIN YO D A Y S
r E 1 - 32 4 9 W M
E 3.) j a.a
1
NUMBER OF ZCNTACTS JVIT!-IIN 3 D A Y S
-'igure 3-12 . - -His t~grams s h m l n g the 3rooabilittes o f s p e c ~ f ~ c lumbers of o i l s o i l 1 s ( i ,300 2arrsls ind grea te r ) oc:urrlng ~ n d c3ntact:ng seaolrd f o rag ing 3 r e 3 1 (sumer) 3s ). * ? s u i t of ( 1 ) :he 3rooosed I c t : o n , ( 2 ) tne n o c h d e l e t i o n alc2rvatlve, and ( 3 ) :F,e 2ast delatlon :Iter?dCtve, -3r :?e Onsnore t ransoor ,3 t i on s c e n a r i o .
n PROPOSAL ' 2 EAST DELETION a
I '2
NGMSER !IF SCNTACfS HITuIN 30 DAYS
I 2 NUM6ER DF CONTACTS NlTHlN i0 DAYS
1-, - a.O 2
NUMBER OF CONTACTS #lTHlN 3 DAYS - - - . . - .
Figure 3-13.--Histograms showing the 7ro~abilities o f spec i f i c numbers sf oilspills (1.000 barrels and greater) o c c - r v i n n and con tac t i ng seabird for3ging lrea 7 (sumner) 3s. a resuit 3f
(1) :he omposed ac t ion , ( 2 ) tne n o c h d e i e t t o n a l t z r n a t i v e , and ( 3 ) the z a s t delet ion alternative, f o r the Onshore transportation scenario.
11 PROPOSAL
m a NORTH DELETION @
3 EAST DELETION E2
NUMBER OF CONTACTS *ITFIIN 30 D A Y S
NGMBER OF CONTACTS 'UITHIN 10 DAYS
7- c- d a 4 a g 3.2 j
a.i 4
2 NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITHIN 3 D A Y S
F i g u r e 6-14.--Hi stograms showing the probabil + t i e s of specific numbers o f oilsoil 1s (1,000 oarrels and grea;er) occur r ing and can tac t lng seaoird foraging a rea 3 (sumner! as a result ol (1) the proposed ~ C t i o n , ( 2 ) the north de le t ion a l t e r n a t i v e , and (3) the eas t d e l e t i o n a i t e r n a t i v e , f o r :he Onsnare t r a n s p o r t a t i o n scenar io .
a EAST DELET!ON a
Fa NORTH DELET!CN
32
2 NUMSER OF CCNTACTS 4ITYIN 30 DAYS
r t. 4 m < rS3 Q c 0.1 0.0
1 - 7
NUMBER OF CONTACTS NITHIN iB DAYS
"." 1 b 3
. . . . WHBER OF CONTACTS 'WITYIN J DAYS
f i g u r e 3-15 .--Hi stoarams rhowing the 7robabil i t ies of s ~ e c j f i c numbers of o i l s s i l i s (1,300 b a r r e l s and g r e a t e r ) occurr ing and con tac t ing seabird f o rag lng u.ea 4 (surrmer! 3s.3 result gf ) the pPODOSed Ict:on, ( 2 ) t h e n o c h de le t ion 3 l t e r n a t l v e , and ! 3 ) 'he sast d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r :9e snsnore t r a n s p o r t a t ; o n scenar io .
n PROPOSAL B EAST DELETlON
9 NORTH DELETION a
a.0 7
1 NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITHIN 30 DAYS
0.0 /-
1 NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITHIN 70 DAYS
0.0 I
1 NUMBER 3F CONTACTS WITHIN 3 DAYS
Figure 3-16.--Histograms showing the probabilities a f s s e c i f i c nunrbers d f o i l spi 11 s (1,000 barrels and g r e a t e r ) occurring and c ~ v t a c t i n g seabird foraging area 5 (sumner) as a r e s u l t o f (1 ) the praoosed ~ c t i o n , ( 2 ) the nor th d e l e t i o n d l t e m f a t i v e , and ( 3 ) the e a s t d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r the anshore Transporta t ion scenario.
EAST 3E;LET!ON B 3 NORTH DELETION E
1 3 *
NUMBE2 OF CONTACTS 'NITSIN 30 BAYS
1 2 NUMBER OF CONTACTS ;YITH!N 10 D A Y 3
r t =! r: 4 a 0 x
a*! a. 0
1 2 NljMBER OF CONTACTS NlTHlN 3 DAYS
Figure 3-17.--ilistograrns showing the probabil i t i e s o f s ~ e c i f i c numbers of o i l sp i 11 s (1.500 b a r r e l s and greater) occurr ing and c?ntact ing seabird foraging area 1 ( w i n t e r ) as. I result o f ( A ) t he proposed ac t ion , ( 2 ) t he n a c h ?elet!cm 3 l t e r n a t r v e . and ( 3 ) the e a s t d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e . f o r the ansnore t r anspor t a t ion Scenarlo.
1 PROPOSAL I EAST DELETION
NUMBER OF CONTACTS iVlT!-!lN 30 DAYS
NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITHIN 70 DAYS
NUMBER OF CONTACTS 1lTYIN 3 D A Y S
F i g u r e 8-18.--Hi stograms showing the ?robabi 1 i t i e s of speci f ic numbers o f 0i l s p i 11 s (1.000 barre ls and g r e a t e r ) occurring and c o n t a c t i n g seabird foraging area 2 ( w i n t e r ) as a result o i (1) the proposed a c t i o n , ( 2 ) t he n o r t h d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e . and ( 3 ) t h e easc d e l e t i o n d l t e r n a t ~ v e , f o r t h e o n s h o r e ' r a n s p o r t a t i o n . scenario.
NORTY DELETION Zi
NGMBE.9 OF CONTACTS WITHIN 10 DAYS
NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITHIN 3 DAYS
Figure 8-19.--Histdqr~1~ showing the p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f speci f ic iumoers o f o i 1 sp i 11 s (1.000 b a r r e l s Ind ?rester) occurr ing and contacting King crab a r w (sumner) as 3 result o f ( I ) +he lraposed act ion. : 2 ) the n o r t h d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t t v e , and ( 3 ) t h e e a s t d e l e t i o n a1 t a r n a t i v e , f o r the onshore transDorcatlon scenario.
n PROPOSAL 3 EAST DELETION 3
9 NORTtl DELETION E3
NUMBER OF CDNTACTS WITHIN 30 D A Y S
NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITHIN i0 DAYS
0.0 1 1 - 9
NUMBER OF CONTACTS IITHIN 3 DAYS i i gure 3-20.--Histo rams showlng 'he probabil ities o f speclric numers o r
o i l splyl s (1 ,Of23 oarreis and greater) occurring and contacting Yukon Delta (sumner) 3s a result ' o f (1) the prooosed action, (2) the north deletion alternative, and ( 3 ) the east deletion alternative, for the onshore transportation scenario.
13 PROPOSAL B EAST DELETION
I 2 3 A NUMSER OF CONTACTS iVlTY!N 30 D A Y S
1 2 3 NUMBER OF CONTACTS IVITH!N 70 DAYS
1 2 3 4
NUMSER OF CONTACTS HITY!N 3 DAYS t lgure 5-LL.--Histogram snowi nq the orooao i 1 i ties o f s p e c i f i c numbers , ~ f
oilspills (1.000 barrels and greater) occurring and c o n t i e t i n g Gray wnale 3rea 3s a result a f (1) the proposed ac t i on , ( 2 ) the l o r t b d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e , and ( 3 ) t he east d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r zhe 3nshore t r a n s p o r t a t i o n scenario.
a EAST DELET'CY a
Figure 3-22.--Histograms showing t h e probantlities o f specific numbers of 01 lsnll 1 s (1,000 barrels and greater) occurring and y o n t a c t i n g land as a result of (1) the ~roposed act ion, , 2 ) the n o r t h d e l e t i o n ~ l t e r n a t i v e , a n d ( 3 ) the a a s t deletion alternat7ve. f o r :he o f f sho re t r a n s p o r t a t i o n scenan o.
EAST 3ELETI:Y 3
r r i - ;= d
?3 I -I
a.B I 1
NGMSER OF CONTACTS HlfH!N 3 DAVS
Figure 3-23.--Histograms snowing the probabi 1 i t i e s o f q e c i f i c numers 3f o i 1 sp i 11s (1,900 b a r e l f and greater) occurr ing and con tac t i ng i c e zone 5 3s a result 3 f ('1) the 2rooosea ~ t i o n , ( 2 ) t 9 e nor th d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e , and ; 3 ) !he east deletron a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r the of fshore t r a n s p o ~ a t 7 o n scenan o.
B EAST DELETlOrJ
t k -1 ;n 2 a.3 i g 0.2 - ea. i 1 I
a.O - -- - I 7
NljMBER OF CONTACTS h'IT+!N 30 D A V S
d
1 2 NUPSER OF CONTACTS HIT3IN 10 D A v S
1 2 - NLMSER OF CONTACTS iVlfH!N 3 D A Y S
Figure 3-24.--Histograms showing the p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f s p e c i f i c nuroen o f o i l s p i l l s (1,300 barrels and greairr; d c z w r i n g dnd con tac t i ng mid-boundary area ! (sumner) 3 s a result crf (:) the proposed ac t i on , ( 2 ) the n o r t h d e l e t i o n 3lternative, and i3) :he e s t j e l e c i o n alternative, f o r t h e o f f sno re t r a n s p o r t a t i o n scenar io.
NGMSER OF ZONTACTS NITFIN 3k3 D A Y S
NtiMBER OF CONT.4CTS WlTMN 10 D A Y S
t t- i ;n < z 8
a j a.a --.-
1 3 L
NUHSER OF CONTACTS iY173!N 3 DAYS
Cigure 6-25.--Histograms showin4 the ~ r o ' l a o i l i t i e s of soec i f ' c numbers rrf o i 1 spi l l s ;: ,;CU barrel s 3nd greater) o c c ~ r r i ng and contacting nid-ooundary l rea 2 ( s z n c r f as a resul t o f j l ) the ~rooosed action. ( 2 ) the north delet ion al ternat ive. and ( 3 ) the e a s t :elet;an d l te rna t ive , f o r the offsnore tranSDortation jCenarl3:
B EAST 35LET1'3.N
NUMSER tlF CONTACTS 'vVIT!-I!N !0 DAYS
.- NUMBER OF CONTACTS WLTHIN 3 DAYS
F igure 8-25.--Hi stograms showing the probabi 1 i ' c i es o f soec i f i c numbers o f oilrpill s (1.00CY b a r r e l s and grea te r ) occu r r i ng :nd c o n t a c t i n g aid-ooundary area 3 ( s u m e r ) is a result ~f ,:) t h e voposed aczion, ( 2 ) the nor th d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e , and ( 3 ) the eas t deletion 3lternative, f o r the ~ f f s h o r e EranSportation scenario.
3 EAST DELET!@W
r L - 4
" a.1 4 L. - I 8.0 --
1 2 3 NUMSER SF CONTACTS A'ITYIN 30 D A V S
:igure 3-27.--Histograms showing the rooa abilities o f specific numbers of 3 i l spills (1,300 barrels and g r e a t e r ) occgrrlnq 3nd c3ntaeting mid-uoundary area 1 (sumner) as a result 3 i ( I ) :ne ?mDOsed action, (2) the north deletion alternative, and ( 3 ) the easr delet:on a 1 ternative, f o r the oiisnore EransDor ta t i on scenario.
I EAST DELET!ON
I 2 NLFBER C)F CONTACTS NITY!N 30 D A v S
NUMSER OF CONTACTS i4vVITtl!N :0 DAYS
a.o - - 2
.. - NUMSER OF CONTACTS il(lT?!N 3 D A Y S
~i gut-@ 3-28.--Hi stograms snowing the probaoi 1 i ti es o f spec:fic numbers of o i 1 $ p i 11 s (1,300 barrels and greater) Gccurri ng and contact ing aid-ooundary area 5 (sumer) as a result o f ( 1 ) the Jroposed act ion, ( 2 ) the north deletion alternative. and ( 3 ) t h e east deletion alternative. for the of fshore transportation scenario.
= 3 EAST DELET'QY =
NUMBE.9 OF CONTACTS UVITHIN DAYS
NUMBER OF CONTACTS NITSIN 3 D A Y S F!gure 3-29.--rlistograms showing the prubabi 1 i t i e s of specifqc numbers of
oi l s ~ i l l s (1,000 5arels 3nd greater) ocz2rri?g and c o n t a c t i n g mid-boundary area 1 ( w i n t e r ) 3s. a result g f (1) the proposed action, ; 2 ) the north deletion alternat~ve. 3nd (3) :9e east deletion alternative, f o r the 3f fsnorc trans p o r t a t i o n scenario.
EAST DELETICY 3
NUMBE.9 OF CONTACTS i4ITHIN 30 D A Y S
NUMSER OF CONTACTS WlTL'lN :0 D A Y S
0.0 -- - L.
1 2 W M S E R OF CONTACTS NITV!N 3 D A Y S
Figure 3-30.--Histograms showing the p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f specif ic numbers of o i 1 S P I 11 s (1,000 " y e ! z and g r e a t e r ) s c c u r r i n g an:! con tac t ing qid-boundary area 3 ( w i n t e r ) as d resdit s f (1) the ;~roposed action, ( 2 ) the n o e h d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e . and ( 3 ) t h e P a s t de t e r ion alternative, f o r the o f f sho re t ransporTat ion scenar io .
EAST 9ELETiOhl a
! 2 NUMBER SF CDNfACTS NITL(!N 30 3.4"s
1 2 NUMSER 3F CENTACTS IITY!N '0 DAYS
A ot < 0 g a.2 4 l a . ; - --
a.0 I - .
1 2 L 3
NUMSER OF S3NfACTS rVIT!+!N 3 D A Y S
Figure 3-31.--4istograms showing t h e probaailities of soecific numbers of 3 i l s p i 1 ; 5 (1,300 barrels and g r e a t e r ) o c c z r r i n g and contact ing imd-boundary a r e a J (w in te r : 3s 3 tesult 3f !1) tne Drooosed act ion. ( 2 ) t 3 e n o r t h l e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e , and (3) the aasz deletion ~lteraative, for t h e onshore t r a n s p o r t a t i o n scenario.
3 EAST 3ELETIOY
1 2 NLMSER CF CONTACTS WIT+i!N 30 DAYS
1 2 NUMSER OF CONTACTS WITr!N :0 D A v S
1 2 NUMBER 3F CONTACTS I l f$ !N 3 D A Y S -- -
F i g u r e 3-32.--Hfstograms showing the p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f s p e c i f i c numbers of o i l s p i l l s (1,JOO barrels and greater) occurr ing and con tac t ing mid-boundary area 3 ( w i n t e r ) a s a r e s u l t 3 i (1) t h e ?reposed ac t ion , ( 2 ) t h e n o r t h d e l e t i o n a l t a r n a t i v e , and ( 3 ) 'he 2 a s t d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e . f o r She o f f s h o r e t r l n s p o r t a t i o n scenario.
PRCPOSA!. a EAST 3ELEf!ON
9 NCQT? CELETICN
F Z
NCPSEF [3F SONfACTS iYlf3lN :0 DAYS
2
NUMBER CF CONTI\CTS QIT?!N 3 DAYS
Figure a-33.--Hi stograms showing the prwbabil i t i e s of s ~ e c i f i c numbers 3 i o i 1 spi 11 s (1,300 aarrel s and g rea te r ) occurr: ng and con tac t i ng seao i rd fo raq ing area 2 (sumer) -as a result 3f (1) the ~ r o p o s e d nc t i on , ( 2 ) . t h e ?om9 3ele:ion 3lternative, 3115 , 3 ) the zas t d e l e r ~ o n alt~rnative. f o r the o f f s h o r e : ransoortat1 on scenar io.
1 2 NUMBER ClF CCNTACTS IVITq!N 50 D A Y S
r c 1 c2 4 m 0 E "0.1 j
a.0 ' I
1 2 - NUMSER OF CONTACTS WlTHlN 5 D A V S
. .
~i g u i 3-34.--Hi srowarns showing the probaoi 1 i t i es 3 f spec1 f i e numDerS o f o i l s p i 1 1 s (1,000 Sarrels and grea te r ) occnrring and contacting seaoird foraging area 3 (sumner),as 3 result o f ( 1 ) the 3roposed act ion, ( 2 ) :he north delet ion a l te rna t ive , and ( 3 ) the east d e l e t i o n ~lternative. for the offshot-? t ransportat ion scenario.
a PROPOSAL % EAST 3ELETlOhl 3 =I
NUMBER SF CONTAC?S HITYIN :0 DAYS
r 'I-
a.a -.-
1 9 - NtiESER OF CONTACTS NlTHIN 3 D A Y S
F igu re 0-35.---Hi s t o g l p ~ Thowing ',he ~ r u b a b i 1 i t i e s of speci f ic nunOers of i S31 1 300 t r a r ~ l s and r e a t e r ) sc:urrlng and
:Antacting ieiolrd foraging arca 3 : i ~ e r ) 2s r resu l t 1 ) the prooosed act:on, ( 2 ) ,he ndrth delet ton a! ternat ive . and ( 3 ) the east 3elet ion a l t e r n a t i v e . f o r -. the offshore r,ransoorrat;on scenario.
PROPOSAL I EAST 3ELETiGY
b a.1 4 a-a , - 7 1 - -
NCiMBER OF CONTACTS iVlTLi!N 30 3 A Y S
0.0 1 - 1 2
NUMBER OF CONTACTS INlfYlN 70 DAYS
NUMBER OF CLlNTACfS llTHlN 3 DAYS
Figure 3-36.--Histograms sharing the ProbaDil i t i e s o f spec i f i c numoers o f oi 1 s p i l l s (1 ,C70 barrels and g r e a t e r ) occurr ing and ccn26cting seamrd foraginq area 5 ( ~ u m ~ e r ) , 3s a result o f (1) t h e pro~osed act ion. 2 ) the n o r t h d e l e Z i o n a l t e r n a t i v e , and ( 3 ) tne e a s t delerion alternative, f o r t he sffshore t r a n s p o r t a t 1 on scenario.
NUMBER GF CCNT.4CTS 'UIT5IN 30 3.4"s
NUMSER OF CONTACTS JllTulN 3 DAYS
F i g u r e 3-37 .--HI stograms showing the probabilities o f specif i f numers o f o i 1 sp i 11 s ( I , J00 b a r r e l s and greater) s c c u r r i ng and c w t a c t i n g seaoird f o rag ing area 1 ( w ~ n t e r ) as 3 r e s u l t sf (1) cite proposed ac:?on. ( 2 ) The nor th d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e , and :3) the 2 a s t d e l e t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r the o f f s h o r e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n scenar!o.
B EAST DELETION
9 NORTH DELET!ON
53
NGMBER OF CDNTPCT3 'NIT!I!N 30 D A Y S
NGMBER Of CONTACTS WI'THIN D A Y S
I C
NUMBER OF CONTACTS .NITHIN 3 DAYS
~ i ~ u r @ 3-38.--iiistograms showing the probabil i t i e s o f specific numers 3 f o i 1 s p l l l s (1,530 barrels and greater) occurri nq 3nd cornact ing seaoird foraging a r e a 2 (winter) as a result g f (1) t h e groposed action, ( 2 ) the north deletion alternative, and ( 3 ) the aast delet ion a1 ternative, f o r the o i f sna re t ransoonat lon scenario.
EAST ELETION B
NUMBER CIF CONTACTS HITUN :0 D A Y S
NLIPSER CIF CGNTACTS WITHIN 3 3.4vS
Figure 3-39.--Hi stogrms showing t h e pPQbaDll i t i e s o f specif ic nurnoers o f oil s ~ i 11 s :1,300 sarrel s and greater) occarri ng and cantacting Ying c r m jred (sumner) as a result o f :1) the prooosed acfion. ( 2 ) :he n o e h d e l e t i o n d i t e r n a t i v e . and ( 3 ) the aast l e l e t t o n a l t e r n a t i v e . f o r the of fshore t r 3 n s p o r t a t i o n scenar io.
r r_ i m 4 m g "2 j
- I 2
NGMBEF OF CONTACTS bVITFIIN 50 9 A Y S
a.0 I - 1 2
NGMBER OF CDNTACTS l lTt i lN 3 DAYS
F i gum 8-40.-Histograms howing the p r o b a b i l i t i e s of s p e c i f i c numbers o f o i l spill s 71,300 barreis and g rea te r ) occurrr ng and contacting Yukon 9elta (sumner) as a , -e?u: t o f (1) the prooosed a f f t o n , ( 2 ) the north delerton a l te rna t ive , 3nd (3) tne e a s t deletion a l te rna t ive , f o r the offshore t ransportat ion scenario.
0 PROPOSAL 3 EAST DELETION
NUMBER 3F CCNTACTS IITF!N '0 DAVS
NUMBE8 OF C3NT.ACTj HITt.IlN 3 DAYS ~i gu& 8-41 .--Histogrmns snowing the ~ r o ~ a n i 1 i t i es of speci f ic numoers o f
01 1 sp i 1 1 s (:,go0 barrels and greater) occurring and cantacting ::27 . ,nale 3re3 as a result a i ( I ) the .reposed action, (2) the l o r t h deletion alrernaiive, and (3) t h e cast deler~on alternative, for t h e o f f s h o r e transportation scenario.
Appendix C --
Figure C-1.--Map showing the probability (percent chance) of one or more spills (1,000 barrels and greater) occurring and contacting sections of the coastline f o r - : 3 davs travel rime, proposed action, onshore transportation scenario.
i
N 06
ALASKA
?ERCEI'iT F=ZO3,-,S:LITV Norton
2 Sound a
St. Lawrence Island
f
Sea
A
Figure C-2.--Map showing t h e p r o b a b i l i t y ( p e r c e n t chance) o f one o r more s p i l l s (1,000 barrels and g r e a t e r ) occurr ing and c o n t a c t i n g s e c t i o n s of t h e c o a s t l i n e f o r 1 0 days travel time, proposed a c t i o n , onshore t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s c e n a r i o .
I PERCENT F)ROSABILITY i
j St. Lawrence
I Island
Norton Sound
Bering Sea
! /'a F i g u r e C-3.--Map showing t h e p r o b a b i l i t y (pe rcen t chance) of one o r more
s p i l l s (1,000 barrels and g r e a t e r ) occurring and c o n t a c t i n g sections of the c o a s t l i n e f o r 30 days t r a v e l t i m e , proposed ac t ion , onshore t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s c e n a r i o .
i S t . Lawrence I s l and
i 1
1 Bering
ABILITY
Sea
Norton 1 Sound
F i g u r e C-4.--Map showing the p r o b a b i l i t y ( p e r c e n t chance) o f one o r more s p i l l s (1,000 b a r r e l s and g r e a t e r ) occur r ing and c o n t a c t i n g s e c t i o n s of t h e c o a s t l i n e f o r . 3 days t r a v e l time, proposed acr ion , of f sho re t r a n s p o r t a t i o n scenario.
Sorton Sound
;St. Lawrence : Island
Figure C-5.--Map showing the probability (percent chance) of one or more s p i l l s (1,000 ba r re l s and greater) occurring and contacting sect ions o f t he c o a s t l i n e f o r : l O days t r ave l time, proposed ac t ion , o f f s h o r e t r anspor t a t ion scenario.
ALASKA
Norton Sound
I I a
i ;: St. Lawrence
Island
Figure C-6.--Map showing the p r o b a b i l i t y (percent chance) of one or more spills (1,000 barrels and greater) occurring and contacting sections of rhe coastline f o r :30 days travel time, proposed action, offshore transportation scenario.