Arctic tanker risk analysis project

This paper summarizes the interim Phase II results of the Arctic Tanker Risk Analysis Project, which examined the risk of oil shipment by tankers in the Canadian Arctic. The objectives were to identify the hazards most likely to produce an oil spill on the MV Arctic, and to institute measures to reduce that risk. Phase I indicated that a high potential exists for a shipping accident at the terminals, the St. Lawrence River and in the High Arctic. However, environmental sensitivity was shown to be greatest along the coastal zone of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence River. Phase II involved further examination of environmental sensitivity and the task of ice navigation. These results resulted in a revised risk profile. Three spill scenarios were then designed to estimate clean-up costs and other economic impacts. A cost effectiveness analysis was conducted which compared spill costs to risk mitigation. As the project enters Phase III, the scope has widened to include all product tankers operating in the Arctic. A new Canadian Standards Association Risk Management Standard Q850 is being implemented with the objective of providing prototype tanker Bridge Risk Management System software.     

Synergies between Adjacent Beach-Nourishing Communities in a Morpho-Economic Coupled Coastline Model

Beach “nourishment” consists of placing sand on an eroding beach. The widened beach provides increased storm protection to adjacent structures and improved recreational benefits, but is most often transient, requiring on-going, repeated nourishment episodes. Numerical models of beach nourishment typically address such questions as how long a widened beach will last; economic models compare the benefits and costs of preserving a stretch of beach without regard to its geomorphic evolution. Neither have addressed the physical nor economic interactions between adjacent nourishing communities. Here, we couple a numerical model of coastline evolution and a cost-benefit model of beach nourishment, allowing adjacent communities to make dynamic nourishment decisions. Beach nourishment benefits adjacent communities both “updrift” and “downdrift.” The total amount of money spent on nourishment activities can decrease by as much as 25% when adjacent communities both conduct on-going nourishment projects, as opposed to the case where each community nourishes in isolation.