PUBLICATION TITLE

EMSATOIL
Part 1
Feasibility study for the development of a software tool to
support Member States on oil pollution response
operations at sea
Final Report

Date of publication: 28 July 2023

Report prepared for the European Maritime

Safety Agency under contract number
2021/EMSA/NEG/5/2021 by the Environmental
Hydraulics Institute of Cantabria (IHCantabria)
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Document History

Version Date Changes Prepared Approved

3.0 15/06/2022 ■ Integration of minor comments provided by IHCantabria
EMSA to the 2.0 version of the interim report.

3.1 18/10/2022 ■ Integration of minor comments provided by IHCantabria

EMSA.
Final 17/11/2022 ■ Integration of minor comments, division of IHCantabria
Report chapter 4 into two parts, renaming of chapter 4,
creation of a new chapter 5, renumbering of
existing chapters 5, 6 and 7.

In December 2021, the Environmental Hydraulics Institute of Cantabria (IHCantabria) was awarded the European
Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) contract 2021/EMSA/NEG/5/2021, call for “A feasibility study for the development
of a software tool to Support Member States on oil pollution response operations at sea”. In the framework of this
contract, IHCantabria will evaluate the feasibility of the development of an enhanced IT tool and will define its
functional and technical requirements. To achieve this objective, the scope of the work is divided into two parts:

■ Part 1: gathering of information to fully understand the functional aspects of the tool and its limitations.
■ Part 2: proposal for options for the definition of the functional, non-functional and technical requirements of the
tool.

This document presents the work carried out to fully understand the functional aspects of the tool and its limitations
(Part 1).

Page 1 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Document Summary
EMSA is currently exploring the feasibility to develop an IT tool, hereinafter referred to as system, to support
Member States in their preparedness and operational decision-making process of mobilizing and deploying oil
pollution response resources at sea. The main goal of this project is to gather information on existing tools to
evaluate the feasibility of the development of an enhanced IT system and to define its functional and technical
requirements. As mentioned above, the work is divided into two parts (Part 1 and Part 2). This document is the final
report referring to Part 1 of the deliverables: gathering information to fully understand the functional aspects of the
system and its limitations.

To achieve these objectives, this document is focused on the following analysis:

■ review and assessment on oil spill models (Section 3);

■ review and assessment on the response simulator to calculate the efficiency of oil response operations at sea
(Sections 4 and 5);
■ review and assessment on the met ocean and observational data to be used in the new system (Section 6) and
■ review and assessment on the databases of the new system (resources/equipment and oil database)
presented in Section 7.

Section 1 englobes the objectives, scope, and structure of the document whilst Section 2 provides the general
overview of the new system.

Regarding oil spill modelling, Section 3 presents an extensive review of the most relevant state-of-the-art oil spill
models (see Sections 3.1and 3.2). The model’s comparison has been carried out in terms of, inter alia, their
capacity to simulate the physical processes affecting the oil spill, their scientific and technological quality, and their
applicability in the EU Member States. The models selected and analysed in this section are 3D state-of-the-art
models that compute the most important transport and weathering processes affecting the oil spill at sea. They
have all been published in scientific journals, assuring the scientific quality of the model, and have also been
validated and applied in real cases. Therefore, the analysed models are suitable to be integrated into the new
system. However, since there is unknown information regarding non-public models, the feasibility for the integration
has to be confirmed with the software proprietary. Following this review, the minimal requirements of the oil spill
model to be suitable for the development of the new system are summarized. Subsequently, this section also
identifies and assesses options to provide data from different sources to the system, such as data from third-party
oil spill models, the location of the oil spill based on observations from aerial, satellite, or RPAS images, and the
possibility of integrating different GIS layers (see Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6). Finally, this section analyses and
provides options to calibrate the model using real data from observations (see Section 3.5).

Once the oil spill models were analysed, Section 4 focused on the assessment of the simulator to calculate the
efficiency of oil spill response operations at sea. Firstly, an overview of the relevant aspects that influence the oil
spill operations is carried out (see Section 4.1), taking into account the basic response techniques, the phases of
the response, the factors that influence the operability of the operations, and the agents affecting the efficiency of
the recovery. Subsequently, a review of the most important and well-documented response calculators has been
carried out, mainly focused on the comparison between Response Operations Calculator (ROC) used by NOAA
and Response Calculator (RC), developed by RPS for EMSA. This analysis allowed us to identify the following
potential improvements for the future new system:

■ modelling the oil spill in a more realistic approach, considering for example, the dynamic evolution of the slicks
and the simulation of multiple independent slicks.
■ implementation of the encounter rate for the estimation of the recovery performance;
■ applying recovery rate reductions due to adverse weather conditions based on hourly weather forecasts
provided by the European met ocean forecasting systems
■ implementation of a daily operability assessment and estimation of the window of opportunity based on the
aforementioned weather forecast systems and the oil weathering provided by oil spill numerical models.

Based on this analysis and on the exchanges of information provided by EMSA, Section 5 presents the new
methodology proposed for the new Response Simulator (RS), which is based on the following steps:

■ Step 0 – Assignation of resources to support the user on the selection of the most adequate assets to be used.

Page 2 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ Step 1 – Operability assessment to check if response operations are feasible and estimation of the window of
opportunity, based on the weather conditions and the oil properties (weathering).
■ Step 2 – Calculate hourly recovery rates for that specific working day. Total Fluid Recovery Rate (TFRR) and the
Oil/Emulsion Recovery Rate (ORR) will be calculated based on a new methodology proposed for mechanical
recovery response. This new estimation, described in Section 5.3, is one of the main contributions of this analysis
to improve the accuracy of the future Response Simulator.
■ Step 3 – Schedule recovery operations for that specific working day. Once hourly recovery estimation is
calculated, it is possible to define the schedule of the recovery operations, usually defined in blocks of transit –
recovery – transit – unload.
■ Step 4 – Summarize results for the simulation time horizon. The results provided by the RS will be: the amount
of oil removed/dispersed/burned, the Gantt chart for the schedule of the operations, and the total cost for a set
response strategy.

Once proposed the general overview of the methodology for the Response Simulator, the following sections
analyse the different elements of the methodology. First, the options for pairing stand-alone equipment with
adequate vessels are analysed in Section 5.1. Secondly, the aspects that influence the operability assessment and
the window of opportunity are discussed in Section 5.2. Next, the aspects that influence the efficiency of the
mechanical recovery and the options for capturing the encounter rate of the response asset with the oil slick are
presented in Section 5.3 and Section 5.4.Subsequently, the technical and logistic aspects associated with the
deployment of response assets at sea are analysed in Section 5.5. Finally, the options of the integration in the
simulator’s calculations the changes in time to the surface oil, as well as the feasibility of having the simulator GIS
based are discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7, respectively.

Once the oil spill models and the response simulator were reviewed, Section 6 analyses external sources to provide
the geospatial (e.g. bathymetry, coastline), met ocean (e.g. wind, waves, currents), in-situ instrumental
measurements, and the satellite providers that will be required by the new system. On one hand, this section provides
the relevant environmental data parameters needed for the oil spill model and the simulator as well as a prioritization
according to their relevance to the models (see Section 6.1). On the other hand, the potential sources and the
potential exchange mechanism from the source to the future system are assessed in Section 6.2. Furthermore, the
possibility of integrating in the system the impact of coastal environmental data and real time met ocean data is
analyzed in Sections 6.4 and 6.5. Finally, Section 7 focuses on the integration of the databases of the future system,
specifically, the resources and equipment database and the oil properties database.

Page 3 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................12
1.1. Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................12
1.2. Scope of the document .............................................................................................................................12
1.3. Report structure .........................................................................................................................................12

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM ........................................................................................................13

2.1. Objective....................................................................................................................................................13
2.2. Functional specifications of the system .....................................................................................................13

3. OIL SPILL MODELS TO ESTIMATE THE TRAJECTORY, DISPERSION, AND WEATHERING OF OIL
SPILLS AT SEA .........................................................................................................................................................15
3.1. General overview of oil spill models ..........................................................................................................15
3.2. Review of available oil spill models ...........................................................................................................17
3.2.1. Selection of oil spill models ................................................................................................................17
3.2.2. Comparative analysis of models ........................................................................................................21
3.2.3. Proposal of minimum requirements for the oil spill model .................................................................30
3.2.4. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................30
3.3. Options for importing oil spill model data from different models in the system .........................................31
3.4. Options to provide the location of the oil spill into the GIS oil spill model .................................................32
3.5. Options to calibrate the oil spill model .......................................................................................................32
3.6. Integration of GIS layers............................................................................................................................34

4. OIL SPILL RESPONSE OPERATION AND STATE OF THE ART RESPONSE CALCULATORS ..................35
4.1. Overview of oil spill response operations ..................................................................................................35
4.1.1. Oil spill response techniques .............................................................................................................35
4.1.2. Phases of the spill response operation ..............................................................................................36
4.1.3. Operability of the response operation ................................................................................................36
4.1.4. Efficiency of the oil recovery ..............................................................................................................37
4.2. Review of available response calculators .................................................................................................38
4.2.1. Estimated Recovery System Potential Calculator (ERSP) ................................................................38
4.2.2. Response Operations Calculator (ROC) ............................................................................................38
4.2.3. Response Calculator (RC) .................................................................................................................41
4.2.4. Comparison of the response systems ................................................................................................42
4.2.5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................44

5. METHODOLOGY FOR THE RESPONSE SIMULATOR ...................................................................................46

5.1. Options for pairing stand-alone equipment ...............................................................................................47
5.1.1. Definition of resource properties ........................................................................................................47
5.1.2. Pairing stand-alone equipment with vessels ......................................................................................48
5.2. Operability assessment and window of opportunity ..................................................................................51
5.2.1. General operability .............................................................................................................................52
5.2.2. Operability for each response type ....................................................................................................52
5.2.3. Window of opportunity........................................................................................................................54
5.3. Aspects that influence the efficiency of oil spill response operations .......................................................55
5.4. Estimation of the encounter rate ...............................................................................................................59
5.5. Technical and logistic aspects associated with the deployment of response assets at sea .....................61
5.6. Integration in the simulator’s calculations the changes in time to the surface oil .....................................63
5.7. Feasibility of having the simulator GIS based ...........................................................................................64

6. EXTERNAL DATA SOURCES ...........................................................................................................................65

6.1. Relevant environmental data parameters needed for the oil spill model and the simulator .....................65
6.2. Potential data sources and potential exchange mechanism .....................................................................68
6.2.1. Geospatial data sources ....................................................................................................................69
6.2.2. Oceanic data sources ........................................................................................................................70

Page 4 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

6.2.3. Meteorological data sources ..............................................................................................................74

6.2.4. In-situ instrumental measurements ....................................................................................................76
6.2.5. Satellite providers ...............................................................................................................................77
6.3. Proposal of minimum data providers .........................................................................................................78
6.4. Possibility of integrating the impact of coastal environmental data ..........................................................79
6.5. Possibility to have real time met ocean data integrated in the system .....................................................81

7. DATABASE OF EUROPEAN OIL POLLUTION RESOURCES AND EQUIPMENT .........................................82

7.1. Database of European oil pollution resources and equipment .................................................................82
7.2. Database of oils to be used by the oil spill model .....................................................................................82

8. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................84

Page 5 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

List of Tables
Table 1 - Oil spill models selection. ............................................................................................................................17

Table 2 - Comparison of models.................................................................................................................................24

Table 3 - Pros and cons of the models. ......................................................................................................................26

Table 4 - Weaknesses and strengths of the Response Operations Calculator. .........................................................39

Table 5 - Weaknesses and strengths of the Response Calculator. ...........................................................................41

Table 6 - Response systems comparison. .................................................................................................................42

Table 7 – Specific improvements for the new system. ...............................................................................................44

Table 8 - Potential configuration of the equipment for each response technique. .....................................................48

Table 9 - Tow and deploy capabilities of VOO based on its deck space. ..................................................................49

Table 10 - Sequence of the selection of the equipment. ............................................................................................50

Table 11 - Large VOO capacity rules. ........................................................................................................................51

Table 12 - Small VOO capacity rules. ........................................................................................................................51

Table 13 - General operability topics, variables, and limits. .......................................................................................52

Table 14 - Specific variables and operability limits related to In situ burning response (API, 2015). .........................53

Table 15 - Specific variables and operability limits related to dispersant application response. ................................53

Table 16 - Specific variables and operability limits related to mechanical recovery response. .................................54

Table 17 - Met ocean reductions based on RC. .........................................................................................................57

Table 18 - Skimmer's Recovery Efficiency (RE) classification of the Response Calculator. .....................................58

Table 19 - List of environmental variables for oil spill modelling. ...............................................................................65

Table 20 - List of environmental variables for the Response Simulator. ....................................................................66

Table 21 - List of environmental parameters needed for the oil spill model and the Response Simulator. ...............66

Table 22 - Geospatial databases sorted by priority and their main characteristics. ...................................................69

Table 23 - Oceanic databases sorted by priority and main characteristics. ...............................................................71

Table 24 - Atmospheric databases sorted by priority and main characteristics. ........................................................75

Table 25 - CMEMS In Situ TAC categories classified as relevant and non-relevant ones for being integrated into
the system...................................................................................................................................................................76

Table 26 – Characteristics of the selected satellites. .................................................................................................77

Page 6 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Table 27 - Minimum databases and providers to be implemented in the new system to cover the EU region..........78

Table 28 – Summary of additional databases. ...........................................................................................................78

Page 7 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

List of Figures
Figure 1 – General overview of the system. ...............................................................................................................14

Figure 2 - Processes affecting the oil slick (SINTEF, 2010). ......................................................................................15

Figure 3 - Main inputs and outputs for oil spill modelling. ..........................................................................................16

Figure 4 - Example of emulsification provided by the ADIOS model. .........................................................................17

Figure 5 - Approaches for model integration. .............................................................................................................31

Figure 6 - ETLs process. ............................................................................................................................................31

Figure 7 - Integration of polygons (geometry load).....................................................................................................32

Figure 8 - Example of model calibration. Oil spill simulation with CD= 0.025 (panel left) and 0.044 (panel right) (red
circles indicate the initial position). It can be observed that the stranding point strongly depends on the wind drag
coefficient selected (Abascal et al., 2009a). ...............................................................................................................33

Figure 9 - Integration of GIS layers.............................................................................................................................34

Figure 10 - ROC methodology to estimate mechanical recovery response. ..............................................................40

Figure 11 – Graphical example to illustrate the main terms involved in a methodology for mechanical recovery. ....40

Figure 12 - Response Calculator methodology to estimate mechanical recovery capacity. ......................................42

Figure 13 - Conceptual design of the Response Simulator and the user interaction to estimate the mechanical
recovery response. .....................................................................................................................................................46

Figure 14 - Example of operability assessment for loading/unloading operations in oil terminals. ............................55

Figure 15 - Diagram of the most relevant reductions in the performance of a skimmer during a mechanical recovery
response. ....................................................................................................................................................................56

Figure 16 – Qualitative assessment of several skimmer types based on oil viscosity (ExxonMobil, 2014). ..............56

Figure 17 – Conceptual scheme about the implication of the recovery efficiency coefficient ....................................57

Figure 18 - Recovery Efficiency charts provided by ROC (left-chart: based on skimmer type and met ocean
conditions; right-chart: based on skimmer type and oil viscosity). .............................................................................58

Figure 19 - Diagram of the encounter rate variables. .................................................................................................59

Figure 20 – Qualitative assessment of the boom performance under wind, waves, and currents (Exxonmobil, 2014).
....................................................................................................................................................................................60

Figure 21 - Conceptual scheme of the complete methodology for calculating recovery rates including the limit
imposed by the encounter rate. ..................................................................................................................................61

Figure 22 - Schedule of the recovery operations. .......................................................................................................61

Figure 23 - Re-initialization approach to update information and re-evaluate the response from a specific time. ....64

Page 8 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 24 - EMODnet Bathymetry viewing and download service (https://portal.emodnet-bathymetry.eu/). ............69

Figure 25 - Ocean forecast grids provided by CMEMS (left) and DWD (right). .........................................................70

Figure 26 - Visualization of ECMWF HRES open-data (wind at 10m above ground). ...............................................74

Figure 27 - Snapshot of CMEMS In Situ TAC dashboard (link: http://www.marineinsitu.eu/dashboard/). .................76

Figure 28- Example of surface currents provided by a regional system (CMEMS - Atlantic-Iberian Biscay Irish) in
the Gulf of Biscay. .......................................................................................................................................................80

Figure 29 - Example of surface currents provided by a coastal forecast system (Puertos del Estado - Spain) in the
Gulf of Biscay. .............................................................................................................................................................80

Figure 30 - Database management system approach. ..............................................................................................82

Page 9 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

List of Abbreviations
ADIOS Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills
API Application Programming Interface
BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
CF-conventions Climate and Forecast Metadata Conventions
CMEMS Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service
DAS Dispersant Application System
DE Germany
Dir Wave mean direction
DK Denmark
DWD Deutscher Wetterdienst (Germany's National Meteorological Service)
ECMWF European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
EMODnet European Marine Observation and Data Network
EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency
EnR Encounter Rate
ER Encounter Rate
ERPS Estimated Recovery System Potencial Calculator
ETL Extract, Transform & Load
EU European Union
FAIR Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable
FIN Finland
FR France
GEBCO General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans
GFS Global Forecast System
GIS Geographic Information System
GNOME General NOAA Operational Modelling Environment
GSHHG Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Geography Database
GTSM Global Tide Surge Model
HF Radar High Frequency Radar
Hs Significant wave height
INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community
IRL Ireland
IT Italy
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
MFS Mediterranean Forecasting System
MHW Mean-High-Water

Page 10 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

MOR Mechanical Oil Recovery

MS Member State
MSI Multispectral Instrument
MSL Mean-Sea-Level
NetCDF Network Common Data Form
NL Netherlands
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA NOMADS NOAA Operational Model Archive and Distribution System
NP Nominal Plate Capacity
NP Nominal Plate Capacity
ORR Oil/Emulsion Recovery Rate
OSM Oil Spill Model
OSRV Oil Spill Recovery Vessel
RC Response Calculator
RE Recovery Efficiency
RO Romania
ROC Response Options Calculator
RS Response Simulator
SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar
TFRR Total Fluid Recovery Rate
Tp Wave peak period
VOO Vessel of Opportunity
WP Work Package

Page 11 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Objectives
EMSA is currently exploring the feasibility to develop an IT system to support Member States in their preparedness
and operational decision-making process of mobilising and deploying oil pollution response resources at sea.

The main goal of the project “Feasibility study for the development of a software tool to Support Member States on
oil pollution response operations at sea”, is to gather information on existing tools, to evaluate the feasibility of the
development of an enhanced system and to define its functional and technical requirements.

This feasibility study discusses to which extent EMSA’s vision and desired functionalities of the tool are technically
feasible. It also proposes technical solutions that EMSA may take into account in the preparation of the
requirements for the procurement of services for the development of the future IT tool.

The information to be gathered and the assessment to be made within this project will enable the concrete
definition of the functional, non-functional and technical requirements of the future IT tool. To achieve these
objectives the work is divided into two parts:

■ Part 1: gathering of information to fully understand the functional aspects of the tool and its limitations.
■ Part 2: proposal for options for the definition of the functional, non-functional and technical requirements of the
tool.

This document is focused on the analysis and assessment of the functional aspects of the tool and its limitations
(Part 1).

1.2. Scope of the document

This document is the final report on Part 1 of the deliverables. This work has been carried out in the framework of
Work Package 1, with the objective to gather information in order to fully understand the functional aspects of the
tool and its limitations. To achieve this objective, the following tasks have been undertaken:

■ Task 1.1. Oil spill models to estimate the trajectory, dispersion and weathering of oil spills at sea.
■ Task 1.2. Simulator to calculate the efficiency of oil response operations at sea.
■ Task 1.3. Met ocean data sources.
■ Task 1.4. Databases of European oil pollution resources and equipment and oils transiting European waters.

1.3. Report structure

The document is organized as follows:

■ Section 1 provides an introduction to the project.

■ Section 2 provides a general overview of the new system.
■ Section 3 presents the analysis carried out in Task 1.1.
■ Sections 4 and 5 presents the analysis carried out in Task 1.2.
■ Section 6 presents the analysis carried out in Task 1.3.
■ Section 7 presents the analysis carried out in Task 1.4.
■ Section 8 presents the reference list.

Page 12 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM

2.1. Objective
The objective of the system required by EMSA is to support Member States in their preparedness and in the
logistical and operational decision-making process of mobilizing and deploying oil pollution response equipment
and resources in response to an oil spill at sea. As an added value the system is expected to provide information
on the operational efficiency and the optimal use of oil pollution response resources.

To suit the needs of all EU member states, it should be flexible, allowing the integration of national sources of data
(national and regional oil spill models and local environmental data sources) and allowing the modification and
addition of new elements to the databases used by the future system.

The final output from the system will be presented to the user in charts and lists that the user may customize. The
data should be exportable in excel format. The output of the oil spill model should be exportable, e.g. shape files
and excel format.

The aim is to provide Member States with a user-friendly system allowing for quick calculation and visualization.

2.2. Functional specifications of the system

To fulfil the EMSA’s requirements, it will be necessary to design and develop an IT system with the following
functional specifications (see Figure 1):

■ To run the Oil Spill Model (OSM) and the Response Simulator (RS). The system should be able:
− To run oil spill simulations to predict the trajectory, dispersion, and weathering of oil spills at sea
considering the met ocean conditions at the spill site. The initial oil spill location will be provided from a
specific location or polygons obtained, e.g., from aerial observations, satellite images, or RPAS images.
− To run several independent spills to take into account the division of the oil spill into several slicks.
− To run the response simulator to estimate the amount of oil removed, dispersed, or burned from the sea
surface by the deployment of oil pollution response equipment and resources. The output of the 3D oil spill
model will serve as the basis for the simulator.
− It should be flexible to import data from third-party oil spill models and to run the response simulator with
this information.
■ Management and visualization of external databases: earth observation, met ocean forecasting, and geospatial
information.
■ Management and visualization of the system databases:
− It shall integrate a database of oils that are frequently transiting European waters. The database shall
gather the physical and chemical properties of the oils required for the oil spill model.
− It shall integrate a database of European oil pollution resources. In addition, it should be possible the
integration of other regional or local sources of environmental data from EU Member States.
■ Management, export, and visualization of the simulation results:
− OSM: transport and dispersion of the oil spill, as well as, the temporal evolution of the weathering
processes.
− RS: the amount of oil removed/dispersed/burned, the Gantt chart for the schedule of the operations and the
total cost for a set response strategy.

Page 13 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 1 – General overview of the system.

Page 14 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/20211

3. OIL SPILL MODELS TO ESTIMATE THE TRAJECTORY,

DISPERSION, AND WEATHERING OF OIL SPILLS AT
SEA
3.1. General overview of oil spill models
The oil spilled into the sea is transported by a combination of winds, currents, and waves. Once the oil is spilled, it
is also affected by several physicochemical processes that depend on the oil’s properties and environmental
conditions. Figure 2 shows the most important mechanisms affecting an oil slick in the marine environment
(SINTEF, 2010). These processes are described in detail in several state-of-the-art reviews (e.g. ASCE, 1996,
Spaulding, 2017; Keramea et al., 2021or https://www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/documents-guides/fate-of-oil-
spills/weathering/). According to ITOPF, there are eight main weathering processes: spreading, evaporation,
dispersion, emulsification, dissolution, oxidation, sedimentation and sinking, and biodegradation.

Figure 2 - Processes affecting the oil slick (SINTEF, 2010).

Most of the state-of-the-art oil spill models use Lagrangian formulation to compute oil transport (advection and
dispersion) and utilise individual formulations to compute crude oil weathering processes. The Lagrangian
approach involves representing oil slicks by several constituents (particles) that are transported by advection and
dispersion. In a lagrangian model, the oil spill motion is computed by means of the transport induced by surface
currents, wind, wave fields, and turbulent diffusion. Accordingly, to simulate the movement of an oil slick, it is
assumed the transport to be composed of an advective and a diffusive velocity. The advective velocity depends on
the currents and wind velocity, and the sea state. Thus, the advective velocity, Ua, is calculated as the linear
combination of currents, wind velocity and/or wave-induced Stokes drift, expressed as:

Ua = UC +CD UW + Us (1)

where UC is the surface current velocity; UW is the wind velocity at a height of 10 m over the sea surface; CD is the
wind drag coefficient, usually defined as 3% of the wind speed (ASCE, 1996), and Us is the wave-induced Stokes,
expressed as (Dean and Dalrymple, 1991; Daniel, 2004):

𝑔𝐻
𝑈𝑠 = (2)
8𝐶

or

2𝜋3 H2
𝑈𝑠 = exp(2𝑘𝑧) (3)
𝑔 T3

Page 15 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

where g is the gravitational acceleration, H is the wave height, C is the wave celerity, T is the period and k is the
wave number.

The diffusive velocity (Ud) depends on the sea turbulence characteristics. Usually, the latter is simulated as a
Brownian motion of particles by means of a random walk procedure (e.g. Hunter, 1993), calculated for each time
step (Δt) as:

6𝐷
|𝑼𝑑 | = √ (4)
∆𝑡

where D is the diffusion coefficient.

Regarding weathering, the most common processes usually included in the oil spill models are spreading,
evaporation, dispersion, entrainment, evaporation, and emulsification and beaching. Other processes such as
dissolution, photo-oxidation, biodegradation, and vertical mixing are less common and supported by a limited
number of models (see Section 3.2 for more details).

The environmental variables required by the oil spill models will depend on the characteristics of the oil spill (e.g.
surface or subsurface oil spill) and the weathering processes included in the model:

■ In a surface oil spill, the slick is mainly transported by a combination of wind, waves, surface currents, and the
effect of turbulence dispersion. Moreover, natural dispersion occurs when fine droplets of oil are transferred
into the water column by wind and wave action, and turbulence. Weathering processes such as evaporation,
emulsification, or dissolution are also influenced by met ocean conditions, e.g. wind and temperature.
■ For a subsea oil spill, sea water temperature, salinity and/or density are required to take into account the oil
buoyancy. Moreover, to simulate the transport of the subsea oil current velocities in the water column are also
required.

Figure 3 shows a summary of the main inputs required for oil spill modelling and the main outputs provided by the
models.

Figure 3 - Main inputs and outputs for oil spill modelling.

Although the results provided by an oil spill model will also depend on the characteristics of the oil spill and the
model itself, the most common model’s outputs are the following: temporal evolution of the trajectory and
dispersion of the oil slick, temporal variation of density, viscosity, water content, amount of evaporated oil, oil

Page 16 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/20211

dispersed into the water column, oil remaining on the surface and oil beached. Some models also provide the
amount of total product, i.e. the amount of oil and water. As an example, Figure 4 shows the temporal variation of
the emulsification of a 100 m3 oil spill (Alvheim Blend, 2009) provided by the ADIOS model. It is worth mentioning
that thickness is calculated by the majority of models, however it is not a common output provided by the models.

Figure 4 - Example of emulsification provided by the ADIOS model.

3.2. Review of available oil spill models

3.2.1. Selection of oil spill models

The frequency of accidental oil spills in marine environments has triggered the development of a large number of
mathematical models that simulate the transport and fate of oil slicks. The characteristics of these models range
from simple trajectory tracking models to three-dimensional models that simulate the oil spill trajectory taking into
consideration the characteristics of oil during the weathering process.

Over the years, many EU projects have focused on the development of these models and their dissemination to
end-users and the scientific community. As a result of this noticeable effort, many oil spill models used by EU
Member States are well established and well documented, through scientific literature and public dissemination.

The objective of this section is to gather information on available oil spill models used in Europe and to select the
most relevant for the comparative analysis carried out in Section 3.2.2. The model’s selection has been based,
inter alia, on their capacity to simulate the physical processes affecting the oil spill, their scientific-technological
background, and their applicability in the EU Member States. The list of models provided by EMSA (see Appendix
A) has also been included in the analysis.

Taking into account these criteria, the following models have been selected (see Table 1):

Table 1 - Oil spill models selection.

Scientific Technical manuals

Name Organization Website
Publications and project reports
Abascal et al., 2007;
Sotillo et al., 2008;
Abascal et al., 2008;
https://ihcantabria.com/e
2009; 2012;
TESEO IHCantabria n/specialized-
Castanedo et al.,
software/english-teseo/
2014; Abascal et
2017a; 2017b;
Chiri et al., 2020
http://arcopol.maretec.or
Fernandes, 2001;
g/Tools/SpillSimulator/Sp
MOHID MARETEC http://www.mohid.com/ Fernandes et al.,
illSimulator_Manual.pdf
2013; Janerio et al.,

Page 17 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Scientific Technical manuals

Name Organization Website
Publications and project reports
2014; Fernandes,
2018

http://www.medslik-ii.org/
Several De Dominicis et al.,
http://www.oceanography
MEDSLICK-II institutions (see 2013a,2013b;
.ucy.ac.cy/medslik/
website) Coppini et al., 2011

Jones et al., 2016;

Norwegian Dagestad et al.,
OpenDrift- https://opendrift.github.io/ 2018; Röhrs et al.,
Meteorological
OpenOil index.html 2018.
Institute

https://response.restorati
on.noaa.gov/oil-and-
chemical-spills/oil-
spills/response-
tools/gnome-suite-oil-
Beegle-Krause,
spill-modeling.html Zelenke et al., 2012
2001; Beegle-
GNOME NOAA https://gnome.orr.noaa.g
Krause et al.; 2007
https://response.restorati ov/doc/
on.noaa.gov/oil-and-
chemical-spills/oil-
spills/response-
tools/gnome-
references.html
https://content.oss.deltar
Deltares, 2021; Bi
DELFT3D- https://oss.deltares.nl/we es.nl/delft3d/manuals/De
Deltares and Si, 2012; Wang
PART b/delft3d lft3D-
et al., 2017
PART_User_Manual.pdf
Daniel, 1996; Daniel
et al., 2003; 2005;
http://www.meteorologie.
MOTHY Météo-France Cucco and Daniel,
eu.org/mothy/
2016; Daniel et al,
2021
The Royal
https://oserit.naturalscien Legrand and
Belgian Institute
OSERIT ces.be/about.php Dulière, 2012;2013 Dulière et al., 2013
of Natural
Sciences
https://helcom.fi/action-
areas/response-to-
spills/manuals-and-
Ambjörn, 2007;
Swedish guidelines/
Verjovkina et al.,
Meteorological
SEATRACK 2010; Ambjörn et al.,
and https://stw.smhi.se/ https://stw.smhi.se/playe
WEB 2014;
Hydrological r/help/classic/?domain=h
Institute elcom

https://www.smhi.se/polo
poly_fs/1.15599!/Seatrac

Page 18 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/20211

Scientific Technical manuals

Name Organization Website
Publications and project reports
k%20Web%20manual.p
df

https://poseidon.hcmr.gr/ Perivoliotis et al.,

Hellenic Centre
POSEIDOM- components/forecasting- 2005; 2011; Zodiatis
for Marine
OSM components/oil-spill- et al.; 2016.
Research
model
Spaulding et al.,
https://www.rpsgroup.co 1992; 1994;1996;
m/services/oceans-and- Howlett et al., 2008;
OILMAP RPS
coastal/modelling/product French-McCay et al.,
s/oilmap/) 2021

https://www.sintef.no/en/s
oftware/oscar/
Aamo et al., 1996;
https://www.oilspillrespon Reed et al.,
OSCAR SINTEF
se.com/es/services/prepa 1995;1996;2000;
redness- Nordam et al., 2019
services/consultancy/oil-
spill-modelling/
Leech et al., 1993;
Warren Spring
Leech et al:, 2012;
Laboratory and
OSIS Rezvandoost et al.,
BMT Ceemaid
2012
Ltd

https://manuals.mikepow
eredbydhi.help/2017/Coa
st_and_Sea/MIKE_213_
OS.pdf

https://www.mikepowere
https://www.mikepowered Verma et al., 2008; dbydhi.com/-
MIKE21 DHI bydhi.com/products/mike- Perrie and /media/shared%20conte
21/sediments/oil-spill Goharnejad, 2021 nt/mike%20by%20dhi/fly
ers%20and%20pdf/prod
uct-
documentation/short%20
descriptions/mike213_os
_fm_short_description.p
df

■ TESEO is a three-dimensional lagrangian oil spill model developed by IHCantabria (Chiri et al., 2020). The
model computes oil slick transport, diffusion, entrainment into the water column, beaching, and the weathering
processes evaporation, emulsification, sedimentation. TESEO has been used during major real oil spill
incidents, such as the Prestige (Spanish coast, 2002) and the Grande America oil spill (Bay of Biscay, 2002)
and it is currently implemented in operational oil risk management systems for oil and gas companies. The
model has been validated with drifting buoys (Abascal et al., 2007; Sotillo et al., 2008; Abascal et al., 2008;
2009; 2012; 2017a; 2017b) and laboratory experiments (Castanedo et al., 2014).

Page 19 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ MOHID: the MOHID lagrangian oil spill model is a sub-model of the MOHID water modelling system, developed
by the Technical University of Lisbon (Fernandes, 2001; Fernandes 2018). It is a 3D model that computes oil
slick transport, diffusion, spreading, entrainment into the water column, beaching, and the weathering
processes evaporation, emulsification, dissolution, sedimentation. It has been operationally applied during oil
spill accidents, such as the Prestige (Spanish coast, 2002) and Costa Concordina (Tyrrhenian Sea, 2012)
(Carracedo et al., 2006; Janeiro et al., 2014) and validated with drifting buoys (Fernandes, 2013).

■ MEDSLIK-II is a three-dimensional lagrangian oil spill model developed by several institutions (see
http://www.medslik-ii.org/team.html) around the Mediterranean Sea. The model computes oil slick transport,
diffusion, spreading, entrainment into the water column, beaching, and the weathering processes evaporation,
emulsification, sedimentation. MEDSLIK has been used operationally for real oil spill accidents, such as the
Lebanon oil spill pollution crisis (2006), and validated with drifting buoys (Coppini et al; 2011; De Dominicis et
al., 2013a,2013b). It is operational in the Mediterranean Sea region (Karamea et al., 2021).

■ OpenOil: the oil drift module OpenOil is based on the open-source, python-based, trajectory framework of
OpenDrift, and it is a newly-integrated oil spill transport and fate model. OpenDrift is a software package for
modelling the trajectories and fate of objects or substances drifting in the ocean under development at the
Norwegian Meteorological Institute, and OpenOil is a full-fledged oil drift model, bundled within the OpenDrift
framework. OpenOil computes oil slick transport, diffusion, spreading, entrainment into the water column,
beaching, and the weathering processes evaporation, emulsification, sedimentation. The model has been
validated with field exercises (Jones et al., 2016; Dagestad et al., 2018; Röhrs et al., 2018).

■ GNOME: the GNOME (General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment) Suite is a set of modelling tools for
predicting the fate and transport of pollutants (such as oil) spilled in water. These modelling tools are used for
NOAA’s spill response support and are also publicly available for use by the broader academic, response, and
oil spill planning communities. GNOME is a 3D Lagrangian model that computes oil slick transport, diffusion,
spreading, entrainment into the water column, beaching, and the weathering processes evaporation,
emulsification, dissolution, and biodegradation. It has been used to support spill response for oil spills in USA
for almost twenty years (Beegle-Krause, 2001; Beegle-Krause et al.; 2007; Zelenke et al., 2012);

■ Delft3D-PART, developed by Deltares, is a module of the Delft3D modelling suite that estimates the transport
and simple water quality processes via a particle tracking method, implementing the 2D or 3D flow data by the
Delft3D-FLOW (hydrodynamic module). Delft3D-PART provides an oil spill module that computes oil slick
transport, diffusion, entrainment into the water column, and the weathering processes evaporation,
emulsification, and sedimentation (Deltares, 2021; Bi and Si, 2012; Wang et al., 2017). Delft3D-part, directly
coupled to Delft3D modelling suite, is used by Spill Response Group Holland (SRGH)
(http://www.srgh.nl/deltares.html)

■ MOTHY is a 3D lagrangian pollutant drift model developed by Météo-France. The model is operated since
1994 on demands of the French authorities for support of the oil spill fighting operations and demands of the
Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres for support of the search and rescue operations. The model computes
oil slick transport, diffusion, spreading, entrainment into the water column, beaching, and the weathering
processes evaporation, emulsification, sedimentation. The model uses current fields from different models,
such as MERCATOR and wind forecasts from ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts). It has been applied in major oil spills, such as the Prestige (Spanish coast, 2002) and the Grande
America oil spill (Bay of Biscay, 2002) (Daniel, 1996; Daniel et al., 2003; 2005; Cucco and Daniel, 2016; Daniel
et al, 2021) and validated with field observations.

■ OSERIT is a three-dimensional lagrangian oil spill model developed by the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural
Sciences. The model computes oil slick transport, diffusion, spreading, entrainment into the water column,
beaching, and the weathering processes evaporation, emulsification. The OSERIT used to be linked to EMSA’s
CleanSeaNet Service. It could use the oil spills detected in EMSA CSN service and estimate the trajectories in
the North Sea area. It is also used by Coast Guard Centres and other governmental authorities. OSERIT model
uses Copernicus Marine Service European North West Shelves model as forcing at its boundary conditions
(https://marine.copernicus.eu/it/node/1886). The OSERIT model has been validated in various academic and
real case studies, including the “Gannet” platform accident (Legrand and Dulière, 2012;2013; Dulière et al.,
2013).

Page 20 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ SEATRACK WEB is an operational oil drift forecasting system developed by the Swedish Meteorological and
Hydrological Institute. It covers the Baltic Sea and part of the North Sea. The model computes oil slick
transport, diffusion, spreading, entrainment into the water column, beaching, and the weathering processes
evaporation and emulsification. The model uses current fields from the High-Resolution Operational Model for
the Baltic and wind forecasts from ECMWF. It has been validated using surface drifters in the Gulf of Finland
and Baltic Proper (Verjovkina et al., 2010). SEATRACK Web is the HELCOM system for forecasting oil drift,
and the primary users are oil combating authorities in the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea. It has been in
operation since the early 1990s (Ambjörn, 2007; Verjovkina et al., 2010; Ambjörn et al., 2014).

■ POSEIDON OSM is a three-dimensional Lagrangian oil spill model generated by the Hellenic Centre for Marine
Research, implemented and operational in the Aegean and Ionian Seas since 2000. The model computes oil
slick transport, diffusion, spreading, entrainment into the water column, beaching, and the weathering
processes evaporation, emulsification, sedimentation. It has been validated in one drifter exercise (Pollani et
al., 2001; Perivoliotis et al., 2005; 2011; Zodiatis et al.; 2016). It is operational in the Mediterranean Sea region
(Karamea et al., 2021).

■ OILMAP is a three-dimensional oil spill response and contingency planning model developed by Applied
Science Associates. The model computes oil slick transport, diffusion, spreading, entrainment into the water
column, beaching, and the weathering processes evaporation, emulsification, sedimentation, and oil-ice
interaction. OILMAP is operational by Oil Spill Response Limited (OSRL) in United Kingdom and by the
Spanish Maritime Safety Agency (SASEMAR) in Spain. Among other applications, OILMAP has been used by
SASEMAR to predict the oil spill during the Prestige (Spanish coast, 2002) and the Grande America (Gulf of
Biscay, 2019) oil spills. It has been validated with drifting buoys and observations from spill incidents.

■ OSCAR is a three-dimensional model for planning and response to oil spills developed by SINTEF. The model
computes oil slick transport, diffusion, spreading, entrainment into the water column, beaching, and the
weathering processes evaporation, emulsification, sedimentation. Overall, OSCAR has been used in oil spill
risk assessment, as well as in response planning and operations. The model has been applied for hindcast and
forecast of accidental releases in locations such as the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Mediterranean basin. OSCAR is, among other regions, operational in the UK by Oil Spill Response Limited
(Aamo et al., 1996; Reed et al., 1995;1996;2000; Nordam et al., 2019).

■ OSIS (Oil Spill information System) is an oil spill model to predict the three-dimensional spreading and
transport of an oil slick under the influence of wind, waves, tide, turbulence, and shear diffusion. Oil weathering
and fate processes of spreading, emulsification, evaporation, and dispersion are also simulated. It has been
developed by Warren Spring Laboratory and BMT Ceemaid Ltd. The physical models have been tested against
data obtained from sea trials and spill incidents.

■ MIKE 21/3 Oil Spill is an add-on module to MIKE 21 & MIKE 3 Flow Model FM hydrodynamic model. The
weathering processes include spreading, entrainment into the water column, buoyancy, biodegradation, photo
oxidation, evaporation, emulsification, and dissolution. The hydrodynamic basis is obtained with the MIKE 21
hydrodynamic module and current data come from a coupled or de-coupled MIKE 21 hydrodynamic simulation
(Verma et al., 2008; DHI, 2017; Perrie and Goharnejad, 2021).

It is worth mentioning that besides the models presented in Table 1, PISCES II and NOOS-DRIFT were identified
as interesting models by Member States (see Appendix A). PISCES II has been discarded because it is a 2D oil
spill model (Toz and Koseoglu, 2018). NOOS-DRIFT is a distributed transnational multi-models ensemble system
to assess and improve drift forecast accuracy in the European North West Continental Shelf (Legrand et al., 2020).
NOOS-DRIFT has not been included in the analysis because more than an oil spill model, it is a distributed multi-
models service.

3.2.2. Comparative analysis of models

The comparison of the oil spill models has been carried out taking into account:

1. The scientific and technological quality of the model: the scientific publications, the validation of the model,
and its application to real incidents are important criteria to ensure the robustness of the models.

Page 21 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

2. Transport and oil weathering processes: most of the state-of-the-art models include advection, diffusion,
spreading, beaching, entrainment, evaporation, and emulsification, which are the main processes affecting
the oil at the time scale of the response. Other processes such as dissolution, photo-oxidation, or
biodegradation are less common and supported by a limited number of models (see Table 2).
3. Definition of the oil spill discharge: capacity to consider surface and sub-surfaces releases of oil and
instantaneous or continuous releases, which is of relevance to address the oil spill scenario of a sunken
vessel releasing oil.
4. Definition of the initial slick shape: capacity to provide the location of the oil spill in different ways (e.g.
providing geographical coordinates or polygons), which is important to update the information of the oil
location with observations (e.g. aerial observations, satellite images, images from RPAS, marine pollution
surveillance reports).
5. Setting met ocean forcings: oil spill models require met ocean fields to simulate the fate and transport of oil.
However, some of them are closely coupled to met ocean forecasting systems in their application area or
to hydrodynamic models. The capability of the model to run with standard met ocean data and de-coupled
from any forecasting system or hydrodynamic model is important to ensure the integration with different
data providers.
6. Model parameters available for calibration: model parameters to adjust the model outputs with real data.
The most important parameters in a lagrangian transport model are the wind drag coefficient (CD) and the
diffusion coefficient (D) (see Ec. 1 and Ec. 4). The model calibration aims to find the optimal values of
these coefficients to minimize the difference between actual data and numerical trajectories. The
application of calibration techniques in real time is not a common practice and it is usually carried out
offline (e.g. Abascal et al. 2009a,b; 2015; De Dominicis et al., 2013b). The manual calibration is more
feasible than the automatic calibration and will allow the user to modify CD and D to adjust, as far as
possible, the advection and diffusion of the oil slicks.
7. Model outputs: results provided by the oil spill model and required for the response simulator.
8. Model interoperability and standardized outputs: capacity of the model to provide standardized outputs
(e.g. netCDF, json) and interoperability for exchanging the results.
9. License: oil spill models range from open-source code to commercial. Open-source code will facilitate the
integration of the model in the new system and the maintenance and sustainability of the system.
Moreover, source codes hosted in a public source code management system, such as GitHub, facilitate to
follow the life of the model: new features, improvements, bug fixes, deployment rhythm, team involvement
in development, among many other aspects.

The models have been analysed based on the available and public references and documents shown in Table 1
which includes: scientific publications, technical manuals, project reports, and websites. As previously mentioned,
the list of models of interest for MS provided by EMSA (see Appendix A) has been also considered in the analysis.
It is worth mentioning that the available information depends on the model, being higher for open-source models
and more limited for private models. Based on this analysis, Table 2 shows the comparison of the different models
(unknown fields refer to information not found in the review of the documentation), and Table 3 shows the pros and
cons of each model.

The models included in Table 3 are 3D state-of-the-art models that compute the most important transport and
weathering processes affecting the oil spill at sea. All of them have been published in scientific journals, which
ensures the scientific quality of the model, and have been validated to a greater or lesser extent using drifting
buoys and applied in real cases.

In general terms, all models provide the most important variables required by the future response simulator, such
as the temporal evolution of the transport and dispersion of the oil spill or the temporal evolution of the water
content and viscosity. However, other variables such as thickness, are calculated by the models, but sometimes
not provided as an output. In this case, an specific implementation in the selected model for the new system would
be required to provide this variable as an output of the numerical modelling. It is worth mentioning that the
numerical modelling of the oil slick thickness is complex and it is is usually represented by models as an average
value for the slick.

Page 22 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Thus, the oil spill model to be implemented in the new system shall be able to be updated. Likely, it could be
needed (or not) specific developments to incorporate the requirements of the system and potential issues that may
arise during the system development.

Table 3 presents the pros and cons of the models, highlighting some specific aspects beyond these general
features.

Page 23 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Table 2 - Comparison of models.

MIKE 21/
MEDSLIK- DELFT3 SEATRACK POSEIDON-
MODEL NAME TESEO MOHID
II
OpenOil GNOME
-PART
MOTHY OSERIT WEB OSM
OILMAP OSCAR OSIS OIL
SPILL

Open- Open- Open- Open- Open- Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary

License Public unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown
source source source source source software software software

late early
First release 2007 2001 2013 2019 unknown 1994 2013 1995 2003 1992 early 1990's unknown
1990's 1990's
on- github- github- github- on-
Download and access on-demand info on-demand on-demand on-demand on-demand info unknown info
demand site site site demand
Scientific-technological
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
publications
Third-party model of interest for
NA-Not IRL, NL, SP,
EU members (based on NA NA NA BG NA NA BE DE, DK, FIN NA NA IT NA
applicable RO
Appendix A)

Feasible to be implemented in
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown
the future system

3D model Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Discharge Single Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
methods Continuous Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes unknown Yes

Initial slick Point Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes unknown Yes
definition Polygon No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes unknown unknown Yes unknown unknown unknown unknown Yes

Able to use met ocean fields

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Yes Yes unknown unknown
from different sources

Advection Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wind drift Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Transport and
Stokes's drift Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
weathering
processes Spreading Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Diffusion Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Beaching Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Page 24 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

MIKE 21/
MEDSLIK- DELFT3 SEATRACK POSEIDON-
MODEL NAME TESEO MOHID
II
OpenOil GNOME
-PART
MOTHY OSERIT WEB OSM
OILMAP OSCAR OSIS OIL
SPILL
Entrainment Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Evaporation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Emulsification Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dissolution No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes

Sedimentation Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No

Biodegradation No No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes No Yes

Photo-
No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes
oxidation
Wind drag
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Calibration coefficient
variables Diffusion
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
coefficient
Oil slick
transport and
dispersion Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(particles
evolution)
Output Thickness No unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown No unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Yes
variables Viscosity
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes
evolution
Oil Budget Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes

Mass of oil
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes unknown No unknown Yes unknown Yes unknown unknown Yes
and water
Interoperabilit
Interoperability y (csv, json, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown
netcdf...)

Page 25 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Table 3 - Pros and cons of the models.

NAME PROS CONS REMARKS

■ Well documented from the scientific point ■ It is not an open-source model.
of view. The model is public and available
■ Feasible to be implemented into the new system.
■ It has been highly validated with drifting on-demand.
TESEO ■ The implementation will require support from the
buoys (supported by a high number of ■ Technical documentation
model’s team.
scientific publications) and applied in real (manuals) is not publicly
accidents (e.g. Prestige). available.
■ Open-source code (hosted in a public
source code management system) ■ It is a module from a complete
■ Well documented from the scientific and hydrodynamic model, less flexible ■ Feasible to be implemented into the new system.
MOHID technological point of view. than a stand-alone oil spill model. ■ Open-source code facilitates the integration of the
■ It has been applied, inter alia, during the However, it can be run model into the new system.
Prestige accident and in many EU uncoupled.
projects (e.g. ARCOPOL project)
■ Open-source code (on-demand).
■ Well documented from the scientific and
technological point of view.
■ Feasible to be implemented into the new system.
■ It has been validated with drifting buoys ■ It is not hosted in a public source
MEDSLICK-II ■ Open-source code facilitates the integration of the
and applied during the oil pollution crisis code management system.
model into the new system.
in Lebanon (2006).
■ It is operational in the Mediterranean Sea
Region.
■ Feasible to be implemented into the new system.
■ Open-source code facilitates the integration of the
■ Open-source code (hosted in a public model into the new system.
source code management system) ■ It is mainly written in Python which may affect the
■ It is a new development.
OPENOIL ■ Well documented from the scientific and model performance in high-demanding simulations
especially from the technological point of (e.g. for long periods and when a high number of
view. particles is required). For short-term simulations, this
is not a handicap since lagrangian models are very
fast.

Page 26 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

NAME PROS CONS REMARKS

■ Open-source code (hosted in a public
source code management system)
■ It is a model that has been widely used
around the world for more than 20 years.
It is the modelling tool for the Office of
■ Feasible to be implemented into the new system.
Response and Restoration's Emergency
GNOME ■ Open-source code facilitates the integration of the
Response Division (USA).
model into the new system.
■ Well documented from the scientific and
especially from the technological point of
view.
■ It has been identified as an interesting
third-party model by BG (see Appendix A)
■ It is not hosted in a public source
■ Open-source code (on-demand). code management system
■ Well documented from the technological ■ It is a module from a complete ■ The feasibility of the model to be integrated into the
DELFT3D-PART point of view. hydrodynamic model, less flexible new system has to be confirmed with the software
■ It is used by Spill Response Group than a stand-alone oil spill model. proprietary(*).
Holland ■ Current data usually come from
DELFT3D hydrodynamic model
■ Well documented from the scientific point
of view. ■ It is not an open-source model.
■ It has been highly applied in major oil ■ Technical documentation ■ The feasibility of the model to be integrated into the
MOTHY spills (e.g. Erika, Prestige, Grande (manuals) is not publicly new system has to be confirmed with the software
America) available. proprietary(*).
■ It is the model of the National Forecasting
Centre of Météo-France (France).
■ The OSERIT used to be linked to EMSA’s
CleanSeaNet Service. It could use the oil ■ It is not an open-source model.
spills detected in EMSA CSN service and ■ Technical documentation ■ The feasibility of the model to be integrated into the
OSERIT estimate the trajectories in the North Sea (manuals) is not publicly new system has to be confirmed with the software
area. available. proprietary(*).
■ It has been identified as an interesting
third-party model by BE (see Appendix A)

Page 27 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

NAME PROS CONS REMARKS

■ It is operational for the North Sea.
■ It has been identified as an interesting
third-party model by DE, DK, and FIN (see
Appendix A)
■ The feasibility of the model to be integrated into the
■ It is the HELCOM system for forecasting ■ It is not an open-source model.
SEATRACKWEB new system has to be confirmed with the software
oil drift.
proprietary(*).
■ Well documented (user guide and
scientific documentation are publicly
available)
■ It is not an open-source model.
■ Technical documentation
■ The feasibility of the model to be integrated into the
POSEIDON- ■ It is operational in the Mediterranean Sea (manuals) is not publicly
new system has to be confirmed with the software
OSM Region. available.
proprietary(*).
■ Unclear documentation about the
scientific aspects of the model.
■ It is a model that has been widely used
around the world for more than 20 years.
■ It is a well-known and established
software ■ The feasibility of the model to be integrated into the
■ Proprietary software – the
OILMAP ■ It has been highly validated and applied in new system has to be confirmed with the software
software is licensed
real spill incidents. proprietary(*).
■ It has been identified as an interesting
third-party model by IRL, NL, SP, and RO
(see Appendix A)
■ It is a model highly used worldwide. ■ The feasibility of the model to be integrated into the
■ Proprietary software – the
OSCAR ■ It is operated in UK by Oil Spill Response new system has to be confirmed with the software
software is licensed.
Limited. proprietary(*).
■ It is not an open-source model.
■ The feasibility of the model to be integrated into the
■ It is not well documented
OSIS new system has to be confirmed with the software
(technical documentation is not
proprietary(*).
publicly available)

Page 28 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

NAME PROS CONS REMARKS

■ Proprietary software – the
software is licensed
■ It is a module from a complete
■ The feasibility of the model to be integrated into the
■ It is a well-known and established hydrodynamic model, less flexible
MIKE21 new system has to be confirmed with the software
software. than a stand-alone oil spill model.
proprietary(*).
■ Current data usually come from a
coupled or de-coupled MIKE 21
hydrodynamic simulation.

(*) The feasibility for the integration will depend on several factors, such as the license of the model, the availability to modify the code (if required by the new system) and
the support of the proprietary and the development team for the implementation of the model in the system. These issues would have to be verified with the proprietary
software after the definition of the architecture of the system (Work Packge 2) and the definition of functional, non-functional and technical requirements defined in Work
Package 3.

Page 29 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

3.2.3. Proposal of minimum requirements for the oil spill model

As mentioned, the models included in Table 3 are 3D state-of-the-art models suitable to be integrated into the new
system. Since there is unknown information regarding non-public models, the feasibility of these models to be
integrated into the system has to be confirmed with the software proprietary. Note that open-source code will
facilitate the integration of the model in the new system and its maintenance and sustainability.

Following the review of the state-of-the-art, this section summarizes the minimal requirements of the oil spill model
to be suitable for the development of the new system:

■ It has to be a state-of-the-art model, which may be supported by scientific publications, validation, and/or
application in real accidents.
■ It has to be a 3D lagrangian model to simulate the transport and weathering of oil spills. At least, the model
should compute the most important processes affecting the oil spill: advection, diffusion, spreading,
entrainment, beaching, evaporation, emulsification, and the changes in the physical and chemical
properties of the oil. Sedimentation and additional processes are desired. Advection should include
currents and wind drag. Stoke’s drift is desired.
■ It should run surface and sub-surfaces releases of oil, as well as, instantaneous or continuous releases.
■ It should be read the initial location of the oil from specific points (coordinates) or polygons.
■ It should be forced, at least, with ocean and wind fields such as those provided by met ocean forecast
systems. Other variables such as waves, temperature, and salinity (or density) are also desired as spatio-
temporal fields.
■ The wind drag coefficient (CD) and the diffusion coefficient (D) should be modified by the user.
■ Outputs should include, at least: oil slick transport and dispersion, the temporal evolution of the oil
viscosity, water content in oil emulsification, oil evaporation, oil dispersed into the water column, oil
remaining on the surface, oil thickness, and oil beached.
■ It should provide standardized outputs (e.g. netcdf, json).
■ It should run with standard met ocean data.
■ It should be invoked from the system. It is required that both the methods that can be invoked and the data
to be exchanged be known.
■ A “log mechanism” to facilitate monitoring the functioning of the model and other services and at the same
time to be able to dynamically discover the status of the service is desired.

3.2.4. Conclusions

The main conclusions of the state-of-the-art review in oil spill modelling are the following:

■ A review of the state-of-the-art models used in Europe has been carried out in terms, inter alia, of their capacity
to simulate the physical processes affecting the oil spill, their scientific and technological quality, and their
applicability in the EU Member States.
■ All the reviewed models are 3D state-of-the-art models that compute the most important transport and
weathering processes affecting the oil spill at sea. All of them have been published in scientific journals, which
ensures the scientific quality of the model, and have been validated to a greater or lesser extent using drifting
buoys and applied in real cases.
■ In general terms, the models provide most of the variables required by the future response simulator. However,
specific implementations can be needed to fulfil all the requirements of the new system.
■ The integration of the OSM into the new system and its modification (if required) is a complex task that could
require collaboration with the model development team or the proprietary model.
■ Open-source, especially hosting in a public source code management system, and well-documented models
will facilitate the integration of the model into the new system and the maintenance and sustainability of the
system.
■ The minimal requirements of the oil spill model to be suitable for the development of the new system have
been established based on the analysis carried out.

Page 30 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

3.3. Options for importing oil spill model data from different models in the system
The objective of this section is to assess and compare the different options for importing oil spill model data from
different models in the system. The new system must have one model integrated to generate the data needed for
the simulator, however, it should be flexible to allow users to input data from their own oil spill models.

Oil spill model integrations could be undertaken under two different approaches, according to their level of
integration (see Figure 5 - Approaches for model integration.). The “fully integrated" approach will execute and run
the model into the system, whereas the “not fully integrated approach” will integrate model outputs into the system
through Extract Transform and Load (ETL) processes.

Figure 5 - Approaches for model integration.

Although interoperability standards are mature and well-defined (see INSPIRE Directive or the Open Geospatial
Consortium standards), the available oil spill models require data and provide outputs in different formats and
structures. In the case of model output integrations, specific ETL modules will have to be designed specifically for
each model desired to be integrated into the system. As it is showed in Figure 6, the collected data is transformed
to be suitable for the system and loaded into the system data repository.

Figure 6 - ETLs process.

Due to the specificities of the model, the transformation process must be adapted to its results, transforming the
model outputs to the format required by the new system.

In the case of the fully integrated model, the selected model will require integrating a transformation process for the
input and output data. In addition, the integration of the model will require invoking the model programmatically,
including its configuration as an editable file. Due to system maintenance, it is also recommended that the selected
model provides a log file that includes any problems during its execution.

Page 31 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

It is worth mentioning that this issue will be further analysed in Work Package (WP) 2 and in the report on Part 2 of
this project.

3.4. Options to provide the location of the oil spill into the GIS oil spill model
The objective of this section is to identify and assess options to provide in an easy and user-friendly way the
location of the oil spill into the GIS oil spill model e.g. aerial observations, geographical coordinates, polygons from
satellite images, images from RPAS.

This functionality will allow running the oil spill model with updated information about the spill response. Field
observations and aerial images provide a confident initial starting point for the oil spill modelling. If this information
is available periodically during an emergency, the model can be re-initiated as new information is received, which
can represent a continuous improvement for the modelling. In addition, this information can also be used to launch
one simulation per polygon and therefore allowing to simulate indirectly the split of the slicks.

The geospatial location of an oil spill is understood as one or several polygons that provide the geospatial limits of
the spill. Two options could be implemented to obtain the oil spill geometry: (1) geometry digitization or (2)
geometry load.

Geometry digitization is based on the implementation of importing georeferenced imagery and mapping tools to
digitize the geometry of the oil slick (i.e. drawing and editing).

On the other hand, the geometry loading will be based on the processes of transformation and loading of several
standard GIS formats (shp, json, xml, kmz, etc.) (see Figure 7). Therefore, results from the identification oil spills
through state-of-the-art remote sensing techniques will be able to be integrated in the system.

Figure 7 - Integration of polygons (geometry load).

It is worth mentioning that this issue will be further analysed in Work Package (WP) 2 and in the report on Part 2 of
this project.

3.5. Options to calibrate the oil spill model

The objective of this section is to identify and assess options to adjust or “calibrate” the model output by using
“real” data e.g. from satellite images, aerial observations, RPAS images.

The aim of the model calibration is to find the optimal values of the model parameters to minimize the difference
between actual data and numerical trajectories. As mentioned, in a lagrangian model the oil spill motion is
computed by means of the transport induced by surface currents, wind, wave fields, and turbulent diffusion.
Usually, this is done using parameters to link the forcing to the oil slick’s movement. Accordingly, to simulate the
movement of an oil slick, we assume the transport to be composed of an advective and a diffusive velocity. The
advective velocity depends on the currents and wind velocity, and the sea state (see Eq. 1). The most important
parameter of this term is the wind drag coefficient (CD), which varies from 2.5% to 4.4% of the wind speed, with a
mean value of 3–3.5% (ASCE, 1996). The diffusive velocity depends on the sea turbulence characteristics (see Eq.

Page 32 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

4). Usually, the latter is simulated as a Brownian motion of particles by means of a random walk procedure, which
depends on the diffusion coefficient (D) that ranges between 1- 100 m2/s (ASCE, 1996). Therefore, CD is the key
coefficient to adjust the advection and D the key coefficient to adjust the dispersion of the oil slick.

To show the relevance of the calibration, Figure 8 shows two simulations of an oil spill drift, using different wind
drag coefficients. The oil spill was supposed to be 65 km off the Galician coast. The simulated trajectories stand for
3-day predictions. Panel left and panel right show the results using wind drag coefficients of 0.025 and 0.044,
respectively. It is clear that for the 0.044 wind drag coefficient, the oil slick moves faster. Both simulations predict oil
stranding on the northern coast of Galicia. However, the arrival points are separated by about 20 km. It has to be
remarked that both wind drag coefficients are in the interval reported by the bibliography (ASCE, 1996). Any of
these values could be used to predict an oil spill trajectory, and as has been shown, different results in time and
location of the oil landing can be obtained. This simple experiment makes clear the importance of obtaining the
best agreement model coefficients for the region of application of the model.

Figure 8 - Example of model calibration. Oil spill simulation with CD= 0.025 (panel left) and 0.044 (panel right) (red circles indicate
the initial position). It can be observed that the stranding point strongly depends on the wind drag coefficient selected (Abascal et
al., 2009a).

The calibration of the model can be carried out with observations provided by satellite images, aerial observations
or RPAS images. It is also recommended the calibration of the model with drifting buoys (e.g. Abascal et al.
2009a,b; 2015; De Dominicis et al., 2013b). The model calibration can be performed in two different ways:

■ Option 1: Manual calibration by means of a trial and-error procedure. In this process the simulated trajectories
are fitted to the real buoys’ paths to adjust the model parameters.
■ Option 2: Automatic calibration by the application of optimization methods that allow to find the best model
coefficients.

The application of calibration techniques in real time is not a common practice and it is usually carried out offline
(e.g. Abascal et al. 2009a,b; 2015; De Dominicis et al., 2013b). The manual calibration (Option 1) is less complex
than the automatic calibration and will allow the user to modify CD and D to adjust, as far as possible, the advection
and diffusion of the oil slicks. It is proposed to focus the calibration of the model on the main parameters that affect
advection and diffusion: CD and D. Including other parameters such as the coefficient for currents, a deflection
angle, or a coefficient for waves (Castanedo et al., 2006; Abascal et al., 2009a; Duran et al., 2018) may complicate
the manual selection of coefficients and the interpretation of the results. In Option 1, the user interface (front-end)
will provide the required interfaces to interact with the system, modify the model parameters, and compare actual
and numerical trajectories to select the parameters that best fit the numerical trajectories.

The main advantage of the automatic calibration (Option 2) is that it allows the use of a great amount of data and
the calibration of a higher number of parameters, e.g. including parameters to take into account the uncertainty in

Page 33 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

currents and waves (e.g. Abascal et al., 2009a). In this case, it is proposed to use an optimization algorithm to find
automatically the best model parameters. The main disadvantage is that to be effective, the method must rely on a
great amount of data (oil observations or drifting buoys) which implies, on one hand, the availability of this
information, and on the other hand, the management and integration into the system of different sources of data.
Therefore, the main concerns about automatic calibration are twofold: first, in situ observations are scarce.
Secondly, the variability of data sources (formats, etc.) from different data providers is very high, which complicates
the automatic integration of observed data considerably.

3.6. Integration of GIS layers

The objective of this section is to explore the possibility of integrating various GIS layers (e.g. environmental
sensitivity maps, bathymetry, shipping lanes, location of wind and fish farms, AIS data).

In the field of offshore oil pollution response operations, geographical position is a crucial factor. It will therefore be
necessary to acquire and manipulate geographic data to represent the real world in a digital environment.
Geospatial technologies will be one of the pillars of the new system, enabling complex issues to be analysed and
communicated to a wider audience.

GIS standards for data interoperability will be mandatory to make location information FAIR – Findable, Accessible,
Interoperable and Reusable. Interoperability will act as a broker between the system and data providers (Emodnet,
Copernicus, etc.), and between the different subsystems, components and tools.

Two methods of integration should be envisioned: (1) standard interoperability protocols and (2) standard GIS
formats (see Figure 9). Standard interoperability protocols (OGC and INSPIRE compliant) will allow viewing and
downloading of geospatial data through standard web services such as Web Map Service (WMS), Web Coverage
Service (WCS) and Web Feature Service (WFS), among others. On the other hand, standard GIS formats (shp,
json, xml, gml, etc.) will be transformed and loaded into the system to provide cartographic functionalities.

Figure 9 - Integration of GIS layers.

End users will interact with the system through Geospatial interfaces with common mapping functionalities, which
will allow data access, analysis and visualization of geodata and geoinformation. The Geospatial User Experience
will have to be designed according with end user needs and end user knowledge.

It is worth mentioning that this issue will be further analysed in Work Package (WP) 2 and in the report on Part 2 of
this project.

Page 34 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

4. OIL SPILL RESPONSE OPERATION AND STATE OF

THE ART RESPONSE CALCULATORS
Numerous variables are involved in the evolution, trajectory, and behaviour of an oil spill. When an oil spill occurs
at sea and is detected, the available response systems are immediately alerted to respond to this emergency
event. Oil spill response aims to minimize impacts and reduce the time for environmental recovery by containing
and removing the oil as soon as possible.

In that way, an effective response to an oil spill will largely require the preparation of agencies and the mobilization
of the most appropriate assets in the shortest possible time. Being able to predict, organize and anticipate events
to have the right assets in the right place is the most valuable information to be known during any effective
response. Over the last decade, oil spill response simulators have been developed, trying to provide this valuable
information to the actors in charge of this type of emergency response.

The main objective of this section is to analyse the relevant aspects that influence the simulator to calculate the
efficiency of oil response operations at sea.

4.1. Overview of oil spill response operations

This section provides an overview of the relevant aspects that influence the oil spill operations, taking into account
the basic response techniques, the phases of the response, the factors that influence the operability of the
operations, and the factors that influence the efficiency of the recovery. These relevant aspects will be considered
in the development of the methodology presented in Section 5 and in the analysis carried out in the following
sections.

4.1.1. Oil spill response techniques

The main response methods include mechanical recovery, in situ burning, and dispersant application. A brief
description of these techniques is presented below:

■ In Situ Burning: this is a very restricted and limited technique in Europe and should be considered under very
specific conditions. In situ burning involves the controlled burning of the oil spilled, at the location of the spill.
When conducted properly, in situ burning significantly reduces the amount of oil on the water and minimizes the
adverse effect of the oil on the environment (https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/oil-
spills/resources/in-situ-burning.html). In situ burning requires two basic equipment: fire booms to collect and
concentrate the oil spill and ignition kits.
■ Surface Dispersant Application. Dispersants are a class of chemicals specifically designed to remove oil from
the water surface. They work by breaking up oil slicks into lots of small droplets. These tiny droplets have a high
surface-area-to-volume ratio, making them easier for oil-eating microbes to break them down (through the
process of biodegradation). Their small size also makes the oil droplets less buoyant, allowing them to scatter
throughout the water column more easily. Dispersants can be applied by vessels or by aircraft. This technique is
very restricted in Europe and not all countries allow its application. The basic equipment used for surface
dispersant application are:
− Dispersants (chemical products). The most common are Type II and Type III (3 rd generation)
− Dispersant Applications System: systems to spray the dispersant that can be portable systems or
vessel application arms. Aircraft could be adapted too to apply dispersants.
■ Mechanical Oil Recovery: the goal of mechanical recovery is to remove oil from the surface of the water by
corralling it and using specially designed recovery (skimming) devices and to store the recovered fluids until
they can be safely disposed or recycled. Recovery devices are most effective on thick slicks; hence
containment booms are used in open water to contain and concentrate an oil slick. The main components of a
containment and recovery system are:
− a boom to encounter and contain the oil
− a recovery device (to remove the oil and normally equipped with a pump to transfer the collected oil
− combinated systems to contaiment and recovery (sweeping arms, ..)
− a temporary storage capacity/device

Page 35 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

4.1.2. Phases of the spill response operation

Response operations do not only involve direct spill response actions. The notification and start-up of the assets, the
travel times to the location, the effective deployment of the components, the endurance of both the equipment and
the transport (vessel and aircraft), the working conditions, and the capacity and staff needs, are what determine the
technical and logistic aspects associated with the deployments in the event of a spill.

The spill response involves the following phases:

■ Mobilization of the equipment: activation of the resources, and transit times from home stations to scene
stations. This refers to the time it takes for response assets to get ready, the crew on board, load
equipment, refuel, etc.
■ Transit times and auxiliary operations: transit times and auxiliary operations to carry out the activity
required. Including transit time from the scene station to the emergency location and deployment
equipment (booms, skimmer…). It refers to the response assets traveling to the oil spill with response
equipment on board, from the homeport to the spill location.
■ Recovery operation: once the system is deployed, the recovery operation is the effective time of active
operations (skimming, dispersant application, burning, etc.). Recovery operation will last until its storage
capacity or endurance is reached, or working time is ended (daily hours or brake time) and will then stop the
operation to start next.
■ On Scene Stand by: it refers to the time a vessel is on the scene but not conducting response operations
due to night conditions or weather unexpected conditions or taking a break in the middle of continuous
deployment.
■ Transit up to discharge or unload: this starts when a skimming vessel at capacity departs the scene to offload
recovered product or an aircraft transiting to load more dispersant after deploying one load, up to the
discharge or unloading point. This time normally includes a time to un-deployment the equipment (skimmer,
booms...), before leaving.
■ Discharge or Reload operation: it refers to the time to transfer the recovered product to storage platforms. It
also accounts for reload of dispersant on a vessel or aircraft. This stage normally includes the time for a crew
change, refuelling, or other activities and it last until the vessel/aircraft is ready to start again the transit time
back to the oil spill.

4.1.3. Operability of the response operation

Oil spill response operations are affected by met ocean conditions. In nearly all environments, there will be periods
during which on-scene conditions may preclude the safe or effective implementation of conventional oil spill
response techniques. Such a ‘response gap’ exists when an effective response cannot be achieved, either
because technologies available will not be effective or because conditions preclude their deployment due to
operational or safety limits (WWW, 2007).

The response techniques (mechanical recovery, dispersant application, and in-situ burning) require the support of
aircraft, vessels, and trained personnel to properly deploy and operate them. Then, the same environmental
conditions that contribute to oil spill risks (e.g. high winds or low visibility) can also make spill response operations
very difficult or ineffective.

Thus, weather conditions can affect the oil response operation in several ways:

i) affecting the general operability by conditioning whether the vessels and aircraft can operate or not and
ii) affecting the operability of the response techniques.

Specifically:

■ Vessels and aircraft can be limited by high winds, high waves, low temperatures, and low visibility.
Regarding temperatures, it has been taken into consideration cold air temperature effects upon personnel
and equipment performance. The final factor involving the effects of cold climates on staff is extremely
important as it impacts the time that people can work efficiently and in safe conditions.

Page 36 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ The operability of the response techniques is limited by the met ocean conditions and the oil properties: i)
in-situ burning is limited by wind, waves, oil thickness, and emulsification; ii) dispersants are limited by
viscosity and wind and iii) mechanical recovery is limited by wind, waves, and oil thickness.

4.1.4. Efficiency of the oil recovery

The main aspects that influence the efficiency of the oil recovery are the following:

■ Weather conditions and characteristics of the weathered oil: the effectiveness of each technology depends
on the timeframe in which it is used. This time-dependent effectiveness is called the “window of
opportunity.” The window of opportunity is determined by the properties of the spilled oil, and by how these
oil properties change over time after a spill. It is critical to understand both how oil properties change over
time, and how the effectiveness of response options change as a function of oil properties (Federici and
Mintz, 2014). Moreover, weather conditions are a key factor in the deployment of resources. On the one
hand, and related to the chemical properties of the product, the environmental conditions during the spill
influence the evolution of the oil. On the other hand, weather conditions influence the efficiency of the
response techniques. In moderately rough or choppy water, skimmers tend to recover more water than oil.
Likewise, the forces exerted by currents, waves, and wind may also impair the ability of a boom to hold oil
(EPA, 1999).
■ Encounter rate: Once the oil has spread, the effectiveness of a recovery system becomes more dependent
on the rate at which oil is encountered. The rate at which one can encounter a specific volume of floating
oil is one of the most important parameters in the overall assessment of a given response system’s ability
to access and eliminate spilled oil (Allen, 2018). The volume encounter rate will depend upon the system’s
swath (i.e., the width of its passage through or over oil), its speed while accessing the oil, and the average
thickness of the oil encountered. The product of a system’s swath and speed is simply the rate at which it
sweeps out area, while the product of swath, speed, and oil thickness gives the rate at which that system
can access a volume of oil with that average thickness across its entire swath. Conventional containment
methods are normally effective in achieving a high encounter rate in scenarios where containment
operations begin early in weathering or develop near the surface of a continuous discharge. In scenarios
where the oil has spread and fragmented significantly, or where maneuverability is required, high-speed
containment systems (i.e. Current buster concept, are more useful and can achieve a higher
encounter rate than conventional methods of containment.
■ Recovery capacity: The nameplate recovery rate (m3/h) is the maximum rate at which a skimmer system
can recover and process oil under ideal conditions. This value, calculated in favourable conditions (calm
seas and light winds), is overestimated. The recovery rate in adverse conditions, where the size and
disposition of the waves, or strong winds, can significantly reduce the efficiency rate of the equipment and
collect much more water than initially estimated, with very high oil loss rates.

Defining the real efficiency of the skimmers is one of the challenges of the response operation tools. This
value can be obtained from previous works (e.g. Dale, 2011) or established based on expert criteria.

Finally, characteristics of the oil and the oil/water emulsion are also important, specifically:

− Thickness: to very low thicknesses the efficiency of a collection system will be null.
− Viscosity: the viscosity of the oil is a primary limitation on the efficiency of most recovery devices. If the
ambient temperature is below the pour point, the oil will become semi-solid and, hence, will be difficult
to recover, since it will not readily flow towards the skimmer. The problems arising from increasing
viscosity over time due to weathering of the oil require a continued revaluation of response strategies,
including the use of the most applicable skimmer and pumping arrangement.
− As the amount of water absorbed increases due to emulsification, the density of the emulsion
approaches that of seawater, and the viscosity increases, making the emulsion progressively more
viscous and stable. Due to the absorption of water, the volume of the pollutant may be increased by a
factor of up to four or five times.

Page 37 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

4.2. Review of available response calculators

Nowadays, there are a few systems to support oil pollution response operations at sea. This section presents a
brief introduction of the most important available systems, as well as an assessment of their weaknesses and
strengths, and the main approach applied to the mechanical recovery.

A review of the state of the art has been carried out, selecting the most important and well-documented systems:

■ Estimated Recovery System Potential Calculator (ERSP Calculator) was developed by the Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), in collaboration with Genwest, Inc. ERSP, as well as in situ burning
(EBSP), and surface-applied dispersants (EDSP) are intended as planning tools for estimating the potential of
different oil spill response systems to mitigate (recover, burn or disperse) discharged oil relative to one another.
ROC is the evolution of this system.
■ Response Operations Calculator (ROC) was developed by Genwest, Inc. funding from the US Department of
the Interior, Shell Oil, and the American Petroleum Institute, and input from NOAA, USCG, and industry
personnel. This system, as RC, provides estimations for the three basic types of oil spill response techniques:
mechanical, dispersant, and burning.
■ Response Calculator (RC) is a software tool developed by RPS for EMSA to understand and quantify, at a
regional level, Europe’s capacity to respond to a significant marine oil spill. The tool provides a comprehensive
database of oil recovery resources and equipment. The RC is based on some assumptions and simplifications
that are planned to be improved by the development of the new system required by EMSA. The RC simulates
three basic types of oil spill response techniques: mechanical oil recovery, surface dispersant application, and
in-situ burning.

4.2.1. Estimated Recovery System Potential Calculator (ERSP)

The ERSP Calculator is primarily a planning tool for estimating the potential for mechanical recovery of spilled oil
by an advancing skimming system. The ERSP Calculator was developed to provide an encounter-rate based
estimate of daily recovery potential for advancing skimming systems operating in open waters, in warm or cold
climates, without the effects of ice, debris, or extreme weather conditions. It is a model previously based on ROC.

The calculator accommodates a broad range of skimming system configurations and addresses response activities
including the accessing, containment, and recovery of oil. It also accounts for the storage and possible decanting of
recovered free water, the transiting of a skimming system to and from secondary storage, and the offloading of
recovered fluids.

Since it is the base version from where the ROC system was developed and because of sharing a similar
methodology, this system is currently deprecated by the extensive use of the ROC and it is discarded for this
consultancy. However, further information about this system can be found in the following website:
https://www.bsee.gov/what-we-do/oil-spill-preparedness/response-system-planning-calculators.

4.2.2. Response Operations Calculator (ROC)

ROC is a free and open-access oil spill planning and response model that can be used to assess system
performance of oil spill response methods, including mechanical recovery, dispersant application, and the in situ
burning of oil (https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/oil-spills/response-options-calculator-
roc). ROC predicts how the spilled oil weather over time and the volume of oil that can be recovered, treated, or
burned for the response systems selected. As will be commented below, ROC’s methodology integrates all the
unclassified performance reduction of the recovery process into the Throughput Efficiency (TE) term. Moreover, to
take into account the weathering of oil, ROC is based on ADIOS weathering model (NOAA). The viscosity provided
by ADIOS, as well as the met ocean conditions, are used to calculate the Recovery Efficiency for different Skimmer
Groups (described below).

The results provided by ROC are charts showing the predicted weathering of the simulated oil spill in the defined
scenario and the estimated reduction of oil by skimming, dispersing, or burning. It is worth mentioning that ROC is
integrated with GNOME as default response development in PyGNOME oil spill model.

Page 38 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

The main weaknesses and strengths identified during the revision are listed in Table 4. Documentation of the
system can be consulted on its website (https://www.genwest.com/projects/roc/)

Table 4 - Weaknesses and strengths of the Response Operations Calculator.

Weaknesses Strengths
It considers the three main types of response
It does not provide or use trajectories of the oil slick
operations
It provides weathering simulation by the integration of
It is intended for modelling spills in open water outside the ADIOS weathering model. ROC uses the viscosity
of the influence of currents, land, ice, or debris. provided by ADIOS to estimate the Recovery
Efficiency.
The response at multiple oil slicks cannot be simulated It provides a connection to ADIOS oil database
It does not simulate more than 5 days It is based on ASTM standards and guides
It does not make a cost estimation Oil changes and reductions are hourly evaluated
Mobilization time and first transit time is user-defined Open-access system
Integration in oil spill model (PyGNOME)
It can be used online

ROC methodology for the estimation of the recovery product is based on the Encounter Rate (EnR) (Dale, 2011).
ROC methodology is supported by the following affirmation: “It is not possible to recover, disperse, or burn more oil
than that which is encountered.” For that reason, the first step of the methodology is to calculate the Encounter
Rate, defined as a function of the average thickness of the oil slick (t), the speed of advance of the response
system (v), and the swath (w) of the response system.

The total fluid volume that a skimming system recovers can include oil, stable emulsion, and free water. According
to ROC, Throughput Efficiency (TE) is the percent oil or stable emulsion recovered on board the skimmer from the
volume of oil or stable emulsion encountered. The ROC default value for TE is 75%.

Recovery Efficiency (RE) is the percentage oil or stable emulsion in the total fluid volume recovered on board the
skimmer. For example, if the total volume of a skimmer recovers half oil/emulsion and half free water, then RE =
50%. ROC groups skimmers into 3 groups. Group A, associated with the highest recovery efficiencies, includes the
oleophilic skimmers – drum, disc, brush, belt, and rope-mop. Group B includes paddle belt, fixed and moving
submersion plane skimmers. Group C, the least efficient, includes air conveyor, wier, direct suction, and vortex
skimmers. ROC Recovery Efficiencies are based on the Skimmer Group, the wind speed, and the viscosity of the
oil (see Section 4.2.2). These diagrams are based on tank tests and field trials for recovery systems. According to
ROC, the user is urged to use these efficiency plots simply as rough approximations for a given system when more
accurate information is unavailable.

Based on the ROC methodology, Oil/Emulsion Encounter Rate (EnR) can be calculated as:

𝐸𝑛𝑅 (𝑚3 ⁄𝑠) = 𝑡(𝑚) × 𝑤(𝑚) × 𝑣(𝑚⁄𝑠) (5)

where t (oil thickness), w (swath), and v (vessel velocity) have been previously defined.

The Oil/Emulsion Recovery Rate (ORR) is the volume of oil/emulsion recovered on-board the skimmer per unit
time:

𝑂𝑅𝑅 (𝑚3 ⁄𝑠) = 𝐸𝑛𝑅 (𝑚3 ⁄𝑠) × TE/100 (6)

The Total Fluid Recovery Rate (TFRR) is the volume of oil/emulsion plus the volume of free water recovered on
board the skimmer per unit time. The Oil/Emulsion Recovery Rate may also be expressed as:

Page 39 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

𝑂𝑅𝑅 (𝑚3 ⁄𝑠) = 𝑇𝐹𝑅𝑅 (𝑚3 ⁄𝑠) × RE/100 (7)

Therefore,

𝑇𝐹𝑅𝑅 (𝑚3 ⁄𝑠) = 𝐸𝑛𝑅 × TE/RE (8)

Figure 10 summarizes the ROC methodology to estimate the mechanical recovery response. This methodology
allows the estimation of very optimistic Total Fluid Recovery Rates, estimating levels which may not be realistic,
reaching the Nominal Plate Capacity of the skimmer which is well known to be over-estimated due to it being
measured under high-controlled conditions by the manufacturer (usually in a pool pumping clean water with no
waves and no winds). No further information about a sequential estimation of the Throughput Efficiency has been
found.

Figure 10 - ROC methodology to estimate mechanical recovery response.

Figure 11 shows a graphical example in order to illustrate the main terms involved in a methodology for mechanical
recovery.

Figure 11 – Graphical example to illustrate the main terms involved in a methodology for mechanical recovery.

Page 40 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

4.2.3. Response Calculator (RC)

Response Calculator estimates the amount of recovered oil and associated costs for removing the oil from the sea
surface by using the oil pollution response resources from EMSA and the Member States. The tool uses as a basis
for its calculations weathered oil, which has changed its original physical and chemical properties and has an
impact on the removal efficiency of the response assets. The system does not include geospatial visualization or
any spatial analysis different from the mobilization and transit times to the point where the spill remains static over
the entire simulation.

The system provides highly intuitive charts where the evolution of the oil/emulsion product with and without
recovering operations, and the total product recovered are shown, combined with a Gantt chart and a cost
summary of the operations.

Response Calculator was based on several assumptions to simplify the complex and permanently evolving process
of a response operation at sea. The main weaknesses and strengths identified during the review are summarized
in Table 5.

Table 5 - Weaknesses and strengths of the Response Calculator.

Weaknesses Strengths
Met ocean data is considered as constant values It applies skimmer rules to evaluate the effectiveness
representative for winter or summer seasons of the response
Oil slick location remains static It includes mobilization time and cost estimation
It applies adequate rules for pairing stand-alone
Oil thickness is not considered
equipment with adequate vessels
It includes a comprehensive database of equipment
The encounter rate is not considered
and their properties
Pairing equipment rules are only implemented as a It simulates the three basic types of oil spill response
recommendation in the documentation techniques
The model is not re-initialized after recovery
It estimates oil recovery based on the skimmer
operations or with new information about the spill
performance by several specific reductions
observations.
Mobilization time and first transit time is estimated It is based on the wide experience of the Members
based on path-finding algorithms States
Response at multiple oil slicks cannot be simulated

Response Calculator estimates skimming operations based on a sequence of reductions over the skimmer nominal
plate capacity. The methodology used in RC is based on the manufacturer skimmer’s nominal plate capacity.
Sequentially, several reductions are applied in order to approximate the recovery rate of the skimmer to the actual
performance observed in operations during this kind of emergency (see Figure 12).

Page 41 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 12 - Response Calculator methodology to estimate mechanical recovery capacity.

4.2.4. Comparison of the response systems

Following the review of the top cut-edge response systems available, the comparison of the main aspects and
characteristics is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6 - Response systems comparison.

Main aspects of the system RC ROC

Met ocean conditions Time-constant Time-constant or time-varying
Constant value for the entire
Recovery Rate estimation Time-varying value (hourly)
response
Max simulation days No limit 5 days
Oil slick thickens used Not considered Constant value or hourly value
Encounter rate estimation No Yes
Skimmer type and weather
conditions (wind or wave) or
Skimmer Recovery Efficiency is
Skimmer type product viscosity. Efficiency used is
based on
the most unfavourable of both
possibilities
Oil database integrated None ADIOS oil database
None (but ROC is integrated into
Oil spill trajectory model integrated None (it can use OILMAP results)
PyGNOME)
Multi-spill approach No No
Pairing stand-alone equipment Well documented rules but not Few fixed pairings and users can
rules automatically implemented create new ones.
Estimation of mobilization time and
Yes, using path-finding algorithms User-defined
first transit time
Cost estimation Yes No

Based on the comparison of the RC and ROC systems, the following potential improvements regarding to the state-
of-the-art for the future new system have been identified (more details in Table 7):

Page 42 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ The first improvement is related to the capabilities of the system to simulate the oil spill in a more realistic
approach, considering the dynamic evolution of the slicks and the simulation of multiple slicks.
■ The second improvement relates to the implementation of the encounter rate. As mentioned, the rate at which
one can encounter a specific volume of floating oil is one of the most important parameters in the overall
assessment of a given response system’s ability to access and eliminate spilled oil. The encounter rate can be
calculated as a function of the system’s swath, the vessel velocity, and the average thickness of the oil
encountered.
■ The third improvement proposed is to apply recovery rate reductions due to adverse weather based on hourly
met ocean forecasts provided by the European forecasting systems, instead of a constant pre-defined value for
the entire operation. Section 6 presents a detailed description of the European met ocean services and the
recommended data sources for this analysis.
■ Finally, the fourth improvement concerns the implementation of a daily operability assessment based on the
aforementioned weather forecast systems. This assessment will allow us to determine which days will be not
feasible to conduct the response operations and to assess the user on the window of opportunity for oil spill
response at sea considering the weather conditions and the characteristics of the weathered oil (oil spill
thickness).

Page 43 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

4.2.5. Conclusions

As a conclusion of the review carried out, the following specific improvements to be considered in the new system have been identified (see Table 7):

Table 7 – Specific improvements for the new system.

Potential improvements for the new system Remarks

■ To integrate an oil spill model to simulate the ■ Oil spill models do not simulate the division of the oil spill. It
transport and fate of the oil spilled (temporal can be approached by the simulation of multiple independent
evolution) slicks;
■ To import data from third-party oil spill models ■ The thickness estimation is complex and may include
■ To run several independent spills to take into uncertainties. Besides the information provided by the model,
account the division of the oil spill into several the system will also allow the user to select a constant value
Regarding Oil Spill Modelling
slicks (e.g. obtained from observations).
■ To incorporate the temporal evolution of the oil ■ To re-reinitialize a simulation using the previous weathering
thickness conditions provided by the model (oil density, thickness,
■ To re-initialize the simulation with new viscosity, emulsification…) is not a common functionality in oil
information regarding the slick evolution (e.g. spill models. Oil substance properties (density, water content,
polygons obtained from observations) viscosity…) would be needed to set up for each simulation.
■ Forecast temporal horizon is limited approximately to 5-6
days at regional scale and 10 days at global scale (this value
may vary depending on the data source).
■ The spatial resolution of regional systems is appropriate at
■ To use weather forecasts (wind, waves,
regional scale (open sea)
Regarding Met ocean conditions currents, temperature…) provided by met ocean
■ To better characterize the weather conditions near the coast,
forecast systems.
and therefore to improve the simulations in coastal areas,
high-resolution met ocean data are required, especially
downscaled currents provided by coastal and local
hydrodynamic models.
■ To integrate operability assessment based on
■ The temporal forecast period of the operability assessment
weather forecasts to determine which days will
and the window of opportunity will depend on the forecast
Regarding the operability of the response not be feasible to conduct the response
temporal horizon of the met ocean data source.
operation and the window of opportunity operations due to adverse met ocean conditions
■ The spatial resolution of regional systems is appropriate at
or insufficient oil spill thickness to ensure the
regional scale (offshore).
recovery of the oil/emulsion product.

Page 44 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Potential improvements for the new system Remarks

■ To integrate the estimation of the window of
opportunity based on weather forecasts, oil
weathering provided by oil spill models, and the
operability limits for the response techniques.
■ To estimate a time-varying recovery rate.
■ To use met ocean forecasts (hourly temporal
Regarding the Recovery Rate estimation
resolution) to estimate the skimmer’s
performance reductions.
■ To integrate the estimation of the encounter
Regarding the Encounter Rate estimation rate to limit the maximum oil/emulsion recovery
rate.
■ To consider the option of integrating recovery
■ ROC documentation indicates that these charts are a rough
efficiency based not only on skimmer type
Regarding the Skimmer Recovery Efficiency approximation to be used when no more accurate information
(using met ocean and oil properties based on
is available.
ROC recovery efficiency charts).
■ To integrate pair equipment rules automatically
Regarding the Pairing stand-alone to support the user on the selection of the most
equipment rules adequate assets to be used and avoid
incompatible or inefficient pairings.
■ To integrate an oil database from EMSA (if
available) or a public database (e.g. ADIOS)
Regarding oil and resources databases ■ To integrate the resources database (from RC)
■ The user should manage both databases (e.g.
add new elements, modify, delete, copy….)

The feasibility to integrate these improvements in the new system is analyzed in Section 3 (issues related to the oil spill model), Sections 4 and 5 (issues related to the
response simulator) and Section 6 (issues related to the met-ocean data). In these sections, different technical solutions are provided, analyzing their advantages and
dissadvantages. Moreover, the feasibility of the technical solutions proposed will be further analysed in the report on Part 2.

Page 45 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

5. METHODOLOGY FOR THE RESPONSE SIMULATOR

A new methodology to simulate response operations during an oil spill emergency involving EMSA collaboration is
defined in this section. Firstly, a conceptual diagram is shown in Figure 13 to summarize the main user interaction
with the system and the key steps that the methodology will achieve to estimate the response operations.

The user interaction with the system interface will facilitate the loading of the results of an oil spill simulation (including
the evolution of the centre of mass of the spill and the evolution of the main properties of the oil substance: density,
viscosity, thickness…) into the system. Moreover, the user will have to select the met ocean databases desired to
take into account during the simulation of the response. Finally, the user will have to assign the response assets
based on compatible resources and equipment to be used during the recovery simulation.

The system will provide a default working day to allow schedule operations, which will be the base for the calculations
carried out for the total N days of the simulation. This working day definition would be changed optionally by the user
to satisfy the requirements of the different Member States and actors involved in the operations.

Figure 13 - Conceptual design of the Response Simulator and the user interaction to estimate the mechanical recovery
response.

The methodology proposed for the RS can be divided into a so-called “step 0”, which focused on the initial
mobilization of resources, plus four more steps, focused on the operations in the emergency scene:

■ Step 0 – Assignment of resources:

This step has to be automatically triggered when an oil spill simulation result is loaded in the RS. Based on the
initial point of the centre of mass of the spill, a sorted list for each recovery equipment has to be visualized in
the GIS interface to support the user in the selection of the resources. This list will be sorted by taking into
account the minor mobilization time required for each piece of equipment. In the case of the skimmers, the
viscosity of the oil will be also considered to sort this kind of equipment. Options for pairing stand-alone
equipment (identified in the database of response assets) with adequate vessels are provided in Section 5.1.

■ Step 1 – Check if recovery operations are feasible on the specific working day of the simulation:

Page 46 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Once selected the response technique and the assets, this step will check if recovery operations are feasible
on the specific working day of the simulation. The operability limits of the general aspects for safety, such as
environmental temperature and visibility, will be considered. Complementary, specific met ocean relevant
variables will be checked to ensure that each specific equipment will be used under its required conditions.
Based on this information, the system will provide the window of opportunity for the response operation (see
Section 5.2). Before running the simulator, the user shall confirm the feasibility of the operation. If the operation
is not feasible for a working day, the user will have the opportunity to force the working day despite the
recommendation regarding windows of opportunity and operational limits.

■ Step 2 – Calculate hourly recovery rates for that specific working day:
Total Fluid Recovery Rate (TFRR) and the Oil/Emulsion Recovery Rate (ORR) will be calculated based on the
new methodology for mechanical recovery response. This new estimation takes into account the encountered
rate as the maximum oil volume possible to be recovered per hour (see Section
5.3 and Section 5.4). Methodology for the estimation of dispersant application and in-situ burning remains as
proposed in the Response Calculator.

■ Step 3 – Schedule recovery operations for that specific working day:

Once hourly recovery estimation is calculated, it is possible to define the schedule of the recovery operations,
usually defined in blocks of transit – recovery – transit – unload. It is proposed to add a daily time backup to
take into account possible maintenance of the equipment, delays, and other unpredictable and inefficient
periods. It is also desirable to accept the unload of the recovery product outside the working day (optionally).
This would be up to the user to consider.

■ Step 4 – Summarize results for the simulation time horizon:

At this step, all the information required to define the final results is calculated at hourly time resolution. The
results provided by the RS will be: (1) the amount of oil removed/dispersed/burned, (2) the operation schedule,
and (3) the cost summary of the operations.

The different elements of the methodology are analysed in the following sections.

5.1. Options for pairing stand-alone equipment

The objective of this section is to identify and assess options for pairing stand-alone equipment (identified in the
database of response assets) with adequate vessels. This issue is addressed in Step 0 of the proposed
methodology.

5.1.1. Definition of resource properties

First of all, the main properties of vessels, stand-alone equipment, and the different configurations for each
response technique have to be established and, as far as possible, to be incorporated into the databases of
response assets.

On one hand, for marine operations vessels can be classified into two groups:

■ Specialized Oil Spill Recovery Vessel (OSRV) is a dedicated vessel always equipped with oil spill response
equipment to carry out mechanical recovery, in situ burning, or dispersant application autonomously. These
vessels are fully equipped and do not require to be complemented with other assets.
■ Vessel of Opportunity (VOO) is a non-dedicated vessel for oil response operations. These vessels are dedicated
to different activities (normally sea rescue activities, research, fishing vessels, bulk tank…) to respond during
major oil spills so during the emergency they can be equipped with compatible stand-alone equipment for
realizing mechanical recovery (booms and skimmers), in situ burning (fire booms and ignitor), or dispersant
application (dispersant application system, DAS). These vessels can be very different types and the jobs VOO
may be assigned will depend on the oil spill response and their capacities.

The following information would be required to have an approach to their capabilities to be paired with the
equipment:

■ Deck space (m2)

Page 47 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ Available deck space to storage (m2)

■ Loading capacity (tons)
■ Lifting appliances/ crane (tons)
■ Tow or Deploy capabilities
■ Towing capacity (tons)
■ Storage capacity (m3)
■ Other capabilities (specific equipment, crew number...)

On the other hand, stand-alone equipment refers to the necessary assets to carry out the different response options
(booms, fire booms, combined equipment, trawl-nets, skimmers, dispersants, and dispersant application systems).
Each piece of equipment has its basic properties and requirements to be loaded and deployed, such as:

■ Storage space needed (i.e. 20ft container: 38,54 m 2)

■ Clear space to operate (i.e. 3-4 meters in front of the container doors)
■ Open gunwale to deploy/recover (i.e. yes/no)
■ Lifting appliances/ crane to deploy/recover. (yes/no)
■ Weigh (tonnes)
■ Tow Speed (m/s)
■ Number of vessels to tow and deploy
■ Crew needed to deploy and control.
■ Total meters available and sections of 250 m. (to containment booms)

This information shall be included in the database of the resource properties. These data are normally available in
the equipment’s data sheet or can be facilitated by owners.

Regarding the configuration for each response technique, Table 8 shows an overview of the potential
configurations of the equipment in each specific case.

Table 8 - Potential configuration of the equipment for each response technique.

Mechanical recovery Dispersant In Situ burning

■ Only Booms ■ Dispersant ■ Fire boom + ignition kit
■ Booms + Skimmer ■ Dispersant
■ Booms + Skimmer + Storage application
■ Combined equipment: containment system
booms & skimmer (i.e.

…)
■ Combined equipment + Storage
■ Trawl nets: containment & storage
■ Only Storage

5.1.2. Pairing stand-alone equipment with vessels

Once defined the aforementioned properties, the stand-alone pairing equipment with adequate VOO can be
established taking into account the following aspects:

■ Operation Mode of the VOO

During the operations at sea, the vessel adopts a role or mode based on the activity that is carried out (tow mode or
deploy mode) and depending on its characteristics.

As previously mentioned, the database of resource properties shall include the different capabilities of each vessel.
If this information is not available, based on the rules defined in the RC, mode operation could be approached with

Page 48 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

the deck space (K). This value can be used to define whether the vessel can tow or tow and deploy equipment. Deck
space is calculated with VOO length (L) multiplied by its breadth (B), deck space equation reads as follows:

𝐾(𝑚2 ) = 𝐿(𝑚) · 𝐵(𝑚) (9)

Table 9 - Tow and deploy capabilities of VOO based on its deck space.

Deck space (K) Allowed capabilities

K < 200 Tow (only)
K > 200 Tow and deploy

The operation mode of the VOO will define what kind of equipment can be paired with:

− If a VOO just can tow, just equipment for towing can be selected (storage, booms, or fire booms). Based on
RC assumptions, when a VOO is in Tow Mode, cannot afford Dispersant response.
− If a VOO can tow and deploy, the selection of equipment is wider (skimmer, fire booms, booms, combined
equipment, storage, dispersant, or a dispersant application system).

The selection of the equipment also depends on the deck available area. As established in RC, it has to be into
account that from the total dimensions of the vessel, 15% of the deck must be available for storing and operating
the equipment. If this 15% is not available, the VOO just is disposed to tow operation without charging equipment.

■ Selection of the equipment for the VOO

Two options are proposed for the selection of the equipment:

− Option 1: based on the information previously mentioned. This option provides a more realistic
approximation since it is based on the properties of the vessels and the size of the stand-alone equipment.
This option requires the elaboration of a complete database of resources and equipment properties with all
the information required.
− Option 2: based on the rules of the Response Calculator, which establishes the classification of all the
stand-alone equipment as Large or Small. This option requires less information about the properties of the
resources.

OPTION 1

A vessel just can deploy one type of response at once, although different types of responses are on board. For proper
distribution of the equipment to deploy a complete response, the following general criteria based on the resource
properties are proposed:

− For a chosen VOO the system will provide only that equipment that by its size (storage space + operation
space needed) can fit with the available deck space, does not exceed the maximum weight, or meet the
special needs required (as a crane).
− When a complete response is loaded in a VOO (i.e. boom + skimmer + storage), but there is still available
space, another response could be added (i.e. add dispersant + DAS) if possible.
− Some VOO already has some type of built-in response (that should be indicated in the resource
properties). To these VOO, new assets can be added, to complete the response already integrated (i.e. a
VOO with dispersant application system can be complemented with dispersants) or to create another
response. The storage available indicated in the resource properties of these VOO must be the real one,
with those assets integrated.

Thus, for each type of response a piece of equipment can be selected until a full response is complete (i.e. if the user
selects a boom, the rest of the booms are cancelled so he can complete the response with skimmer + storage). The
response is complete when:

Page 49 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

− The user determines that the response is complete.

− The maximum weight or the maximum storage space available of VOO is overcome. In this case, a second
vessel should be activated to be completed with the remaining necessary equipment.

To conclude, the user has to be able to select the characteristics in a sequence response +vessel + equipment
(available) (see Table 10):

− Selection of the response technique (based on the operability assessment and the window of opportunity
or other criteria considered by the user).
− Selection of vessels (OSRV or VOO) from each sub-group list (sorted by mobilization time). Vessel > Type
> Sorted list of vessels. In the case of dispersant response, aircrafts available too.
− Operation Mode: Tow or Deploy (and tow), according to the information selected in previous steps.
− Specific response equipment from desired response types. Specific response > Type > List of equipment.
The system will provide a list of equipment according to the information selected in previous steps, i.e.
compatible with the response technique, the location of the selected vessels, the operation mode, and the
characteristics of the vessel. As mentioned, the system will provide the list of equipment that can fit with the
available deck space, does not exceed the maximum weight, or meet the special needs required (as a
crane). Note that the available deck space will be recalculated taking into account the integration of each
asset.

Table 10 - Sequence of the selection of the equipment.

Selection sequence Main category Type

Response selection Response types Mechanical recovery
Dispersant
In situ burning
Vessel Vessels OSVR
VOO
Aircraft (just to Dispersant response) Aircrafts
Operation Mode of the Operation Mode Tow (for mechanical recovery and In
VOO (based on the situ burning)
capabilities of the
VOO) Deploy (and Tow) (for Mechanical
recovery, In situ burning, and
Dispersant)
Specific equipment Mechanical recovery equipment Booms
available based on the
vessel characteristics Skimmer
(i.e. required space,
available crane,…) Combined equipment
Storage
Trawl nets
Dispersant application equipment Dispersant application system (DAS)
Dispersant
In situ burning equipment Fire boom

OPTION 2

Based on the RC the stand-alone equipment is defined as small or large equipment and VOO are classified into small
or large VOO in the “size” property of the RC database (the criteria for the definition of small or large VOO are not

Page 50 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

provided in the RC). Based on vessel classification and equipment size the following rules can be applied directly for
large VOO (Table 11) and small VOO (Table 12).

Table 11 - Large VOO capacity rules.

Operation Equipment Equipment

Deck space Allowed equipment
mode size capacity
1 piece of
K < 200 Tow Small/Large Storage, boom (up to 500 m), fire-boom
each type
1 piece of
K > 200 Tow Small/Large Storage, boom (up to 500 m), fire-boom
each type
Skimmer, boom (up to 500 m), Hi-speed
containment systems storage, fire boom, small
1 piece of
K > 200 Deploy Small/Large dispersant system (DAS and up to 4 m3 of
each type
dispersant), or large dispersant system (DAS
and up to 20 m3 of dispersant)

Table 12 - Small VOO capacity rules.

Operation Equipment Equipment

Deck space Allowed equipment
mode size capacity
K < 200 Tow Small 1 piece Storage, boom (up to 250 m), fire-boom
K > 200 Tow Small 1 piece Storage, boom (up to 250 m), fire-boom
Skimmer, boom (up to 250 m), sweeping arms,
K > 200 Deploy Small 1 piece storage, fire boom, small dispersant system
(DAS and up to 4 m3 of dispersant)

This option is less realistic than Option1 as it does not take into account the available deck space of the vessel and
the size and needs of the equipment. Moreover, it only allows the selection of the equipment specified in (Table 11)
and (Table 12), regardless of the available deck space left. However, it requires less information about the properties
of the resources, which can be an advantage when the availability of information is limited.

5.2. Operability assessment and window of opportunity

The objective of this section is: i) to analyze the aspects that influence the operability of the response operation and
ii) to identify and assess the possibility of having a warning message displayed to the user on the window of
opportunity for oil spill response at sea considering the weather conditions and the characteristics of the weathered
oil. These aspects are addressed in step 1 of the proposed methodology.

Response operations are strongly impacted by met ocean conditions as any operation at sea. The operability
assessment provides the met ocean conditions in which these specific operations can be carried out to ensure the
safety and performance of the personnel and the equipment. Operability assessment has been divided into two
main sections: 1) general operability related to general factors such as visibility, met ocean or environmental
temperature; and 2) operability limits for each response technique based on weather conditions and the
characteristics of the weather oil.

Moreover, the window of opportunity defines the time periods for effective utilization of marine oil spill response
technologies and methodologies in clean-up operations (Norvidvik, 1999) and mainly depends on the changes in
the physical and chemical properties of the oil (oil weathering) and the weather conditions. The window of
opportunity will be estimated based on the operability limits established for the response operations techniques as
part of the operability assessment.

Page 51 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

5.2.1. General operability

This section presents the main factor affecting the general operability of the response operation. The most
important variables constraining the operability of the response are the met ocean conditions that ensure the safety
of the personnel and the safety of the navigation. In Table 13, the collection of variables and operability limits
regarding navigation and personnel safety are shown. Wind velocity for small and large VOO as well as for OSRV
has been established based on RC. The general value of the wave height for all vessels has been considered
taking into account the operability limits for booms and assuming that vessels do not operate if the equipment
cannot be deployed. Temperature and visibility values have been obtained from the Circumpolar oil spill response
viability analysis technical report (EPPR, 2017). It is important to highlight that Table 13 presents general values
that can vary for specific types of vessels. Furthermore, staff safety is of paramount importance. Ultimately, these
operational limits must be set by the corresponding Maritime Authority.

Table 13 - General operability topics, variables, and limits.

Topic Variable Operability limit

Navigation (Small VOO) Wind velocity < 5 m/s
Navigation (Large VOO) Wind velocity < 10.8 m/s
Navigation (OSRV) Wind velocity < 10.8 m/s
Navigation (All vessels) Wave Height <3m
Personnel safety Temperature > -18 ºC
Navigation (All vessels) Visibility 200 – 900 m

Operability assessment will be evaluated for each day of simulation. In order to be flexible with the usual
uncertainties and outliers of any forecast, it is proposed to use a statistical value as representative of the working
day, e.g. 80% percentile, which allows exceeding the limit value defined for each variable during a maximum of
20% of the working day is proposed. The user will be allowed to modify this percentile value to create a more
flexible or restrictive assessment of the operability.

5.2.2. Operability for each response type

Differences between each type of response and the equipment and operations involved determine the
accomplishment of some specific limits to ensure the safety and success of the works. To enhance the clarity of the
document these specific operability limits have been grouped by response type as follows:

■ In situ burning

The application of this response in the EU has to be approved by the competent authority, after the authentication
of several strict requirements related to minimum distances from populated areas or special protection areas and
the safety of the operators.

Once this type of response is authorized, the time window for ignition and sustained burning will vary, depending
on environmental conditions, physical properties, and chemical composition of the spilled oil. Once the initially
hazardous and high fire risk situation has passed, the time window of opportunity for the use of in situ burning as
an oil spill response opens, and in situ burning will become a feasible response. The time window of opportunity for
the use of in situ burning will eventually close when the slick becomes impossible to ignite due to the oil layer
thickness drops below a critical minimum, the oil has lost a substantial proportion of its more volatile and flammable
components by evaporation, and when the oil has incorporated water to form an emulsion.

For a successful in-situ burn the layer of oil on the sea surface needs to be at least 2-3 mm thick to counter the
cooling effect of the wind and sea and maintain a fuel source for the fire (API, 2015,
https://www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/documents-guides/response-techniques/in-situ-burning/). The ignition
and sustained burning of weathered oil using conventional ignition technology is restricted by approximately 25%
evaporation and or a 25% water content (API 2015) and wind velocity and wave height (Fingas, 2011; API 2015).

Page 52 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Table 14 shows the specific variables and operability limits for this response based on API (2015).

Table 14 - Specific variables and operability limits related to In situ burning response (API, 2015).

Topic Variable Operability limit

Oil/Emulsion characteristics Evaporation < 25%
Thickness > 2 to 3 mm thick (2 to 3 times
Oil/Emulsion characteristics thicker for highly
weathered/emulsified oil).
< 25% (can vary
Oil/Emulsion characteristics Emulsification
for different types of oil).
Wind velocity < 9.2 m/s for ignition; sustained
Ignition and correct burning burning possible with higher wind
conditions.
Wave height < 3 m swells or 1 m wind waves
Ignition and correct burning (may be higher with fresh and un-
emulsified oil

■ Dispersant application

This technique has also very restricted use in the EU and not all Members States allow its use. Dispersants are
applied from aircraft or vessels, through dispersant applications systems.

As oil weathers at sea, its viscosity increases until it is no longer dispersible. Emulsification and evaporation
processes increase oil viscosity and decrease its dispersibility. The time during which oil remains dispersible is
called “the window of opportunity for dispersion.” It varies according to the type of oil and the environmental
conditions. This period is mainly dependent on the oil viscosity (see Table 14).

A viscosity of 10,000 cSt is often used as an indication of oil’s dispersibility (IMO, 2011; EMSA, 2009). Oils with
viscosity (at seawater temperature) of up to 10,000 cSt are considered to be potentially dispersible, though
dispersion of oils with viscosities above 20,000 cSt is reported (IPIECA-IOGP, 2014).

Table 15 - Specific variables and operability limits related to dispersant application response.

Topic Variable Operability limit

General met ocean conditions Wind velocity Limits of the aircraft or vessel
Oil/Emulsion characteristics Viscosity <10.000 – 20.000 cSt

■ Mechanical Recovery

This type of response is by far the most utilized by all the Member States to face large oil spill emergencies. The
operability limits of this response can be divided into two main operations: boom deployment and skimmer
operability.

The deployment and use of the booms to drag oil and facilitate the skimming actions require mainly good weather
conditions. Table 16 presents the met ocean operability limits regarding wave height, wind, and current velocities to
ensure the correct deployment and use of the booms. Note that these values are general values that may vary for
specific booms, configuration deployment, or skimmer types.

Several documents have been consulted to determine the ratio in which the waves produce failure in booms. Oil spill
response field manual from ExxonMobil (2014) establishes that splash over failure may occur in choppy water when
wave height (H) is greater than boom freeboard and the wavelength/height (L/H) ratio is less than 10:1, where
height/H is an indirect measurement of the roughness of the sea. Fingas (2011) referred to Van Dyck and Bruno

Page 53 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

(1995), where is indicated that a wavelength/height ratio is not a limiting parameter when is 12:1 or greater. NOAA
(2012) states that for mechanical recovery, effectiveness drops significantly because of entrainment and/or splash-
over as short-period waves develop beyond 2–3 ft (0.6–0.9 m) in height. Koops and Huisman (2002) give a priori
limits of Beaufort 6 (10 – 14 m/s) for skimmers and another mechanical recovery. Koops (1988) gives the limit of
skimmers as 1.5 m wave heights and notes that swell has no effect on the capability to mechanically recover.

Current velocity limit values are the other main factor related to droplet entrainment and drainage failures.
Entrainment failure generally occurs at current velocities between 0.7 and 1.0 kts (0.4-0.5 m/s) (Fingas, 2011; ITOPF,
2012; ExxonMobil, 2014).

Lastly, the ability to contain and recover oil decreases rapidly as the slick thickness becomes less than a thousandth
of an inch or 0.00254 mm (NOAA 2012, ROC technical manual)

Oil viscosity is another factor to take into account in skimmer operability. Although the operability as a function of the
viscosity will depend on the type of skimmer, there are several skimmers prepared to work in a huge range of
viscosities regardless of the skimmer type. All skimmers work in optimal conditions in medium viscosities. However,
a very high viscosity could produce problems or inoperability. Based on international standard ISO 21072:2020
Performance testing of oil skimmer, the ratios to light/medium viscosity are up to 50.000 cP and high viscosity oil
above 50.000 cP and up to 1.000.000 cP, so this could be the upper limit skimmer operability.

Table 16 - Specific variables and operability limits related to mechanical recovery response.

Topic Variable Operability limit

General met ocean conditions
Wave height < 1 – 1.5 m
(booms and skimmers)
General met ocean conditions
Wavelength/wave height ratio <10:1 or 12:1
(booms and skimmers)
General met ocean conditions
Wind velocity < 10 – 14 m/s
(booms and skimmers)
General met ocean conditions < 0.5 m/s
Current velocity
(booms and skimmers)
Oil/Emulsion characteristics Thickness > 0.00254 mm
High-viscosity and depending on
Oil/ Emulsion characteristics Viscosity the skimmer (not clear reference
found)

5.2.3. Window of opportunity

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the window of opportunity defines the time periods for effective
utilization of marine oil spill response technologies, which depends on the oil weathering and the weather
conditions.

The window of opportunity will be established by taking into account:

i) the hourly met ocean forecasts provided by the European forecasting systems (e.g. Copernicus Marine
Service) described in Section 6,
ii) the temporal evolution of the oil weathering provided by oil spill numerical models, and
iii) the operability limits previously established for each response technique.

Based on this information, the system will provide the window of opportunity in a user-friendly way, to support the
response authorities to decide and select on which assets to mobilise.To obtain a warning message about the
window of opportunity for offshore oil spill response, four subsystems must work in a coordinated manner:

Page 54 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ (1) back-end subsystem that provides the oil characteristics,

■ (2) back-end subsystem that provides the forecast of the met ocean conditions,
■ (3) back-end subsystem that evaluates the window of opportunity making use of the previous subsystems
and
■ (4) front-end subsystem that is designed to provide a user experience in line with the information required
for the end-users. The use of traffic lights across a forecasting timeline is a commonly used solution
implemented for operation and maintenance systems. To illustrate this kind of graph, Figure 14 shows an
example of an operability assessment in an oil terminal to support the end-user about the operability
conditions for oil load and unload operations.

Figure 14 - Example of operability assessment for loading/unloading operations in oil terminals.

End users will interact with the front-end to invoke the window opportunity analysis and obtain the final evaluation
(i.e. a warning message).

5.3. Aspects that influence the efficiency of oil spill response operations
The objective of this section is to gather information and discuss the different aspects that influence the efficiency
of oil response operations at sea that could be integrated into the system (weather conditions and characteristics of
the weathered surface oil), as well as to propose technical solutions to incorporate it in the system. These aspects
are addressed in step 2 of the proposed methodology.

As stated in the previous section, weather conditions and oil weathering are important properties to determine the
feasibility and the window of opportunity of the oil spill response techniques. Besides the operability limits that
established the feasibility or not of the response operation, weather conditions and oil weathering also influence its
efficiency.

Specifically for mechanical recovery, the reduction of the efficiency due to weather and oil weathering is especially
important. As mentioned in Section 5.3, the Nominal Plate Capacity provided by the manufacturer in the technical
documentation of the skimmer is overestimated as is calculated under controlled conditions, which are far from a
real response at sea. To pass from idealized pumping performance to real pumping performance, the skimmers are
affected by several factors, which have to be applied as reductions to the Nominal Plate Capacity, as shown in
Figure 15.

Page 55 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 15 - Diagram of the most relevant reductions in the performance of a skimmer during a mechanical recovery response.

Thus, the following factors are suggested to take into account the nominal plate capacity reduction:

■ Uncontrolled conditions (Reduction 1 – R1): this term refers to factors different from weather conditions and
weathered oil that can reduce the skimmer performance. For example, in a real response, the presence of ice
(Fingas et al., 2011), or debris can reduce the performance of the skimmer even producing a failure and the
consequent reparation. Moreover, the equipment is never used at full pumping capacity. Thus, this reduction is
intended to be applied to simulate possible losses of performance due to these uncontrolled factors. This
parameter should be stated based on expert criteria since there is not a clear and sound quantification of these
reductions in the state-of-the art.

■ Oil viscosity (Reduction 2 – R2): the viscosity of the oil is a primary limitation on the efficiency of most recovery
devices. Oils with high pour points, including some heavy crudes and fuel oils, generally do not flow
easily. If the ambient temperature is below the pour point, the oil will become semi-solid and, hence, will be
difficult to recover, since it will not readily flow towards the skimmer (ITOPF, 2012). Thus, viscosity is an
important factor for skimmer performance. Not all skimmers are efficient for all viscosities. Some guidelines
(e.g. ExxonMobil, 2014) defines qualitatively the performance of the different type of skimmers taking into
account the oil viscosity as can be observed in Figure 16. This qualitative information can be used in addition to
expert criteria to define the reductions associated with oil viscosity.

Figure 16 – Qualitative assessment of several skimmer types based on oil viscosity (ExxonMobil, 2014).

■ Met ocean conditions (Reduction 3 - R3): met ocean conditions also reduce the performance of the skimmers.
As previously mentioned, wind-waves are the main factor that can produce a loss in the performance of the
skimmer. Since wind is an indicator of sea state, it is often used to define performance reductions. Based on

Page 56 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

the RC’s methodology, the following ranges for wind are proposed to define the met ocean conditions (see
Table 17):

Table 17 - Met ocean reductions based on RC.

Wind range Reduction

0 – 2 m/s No reduction
2 – 4 m/s 25%
4 – 6 m/s 50%
6 – 8 m/s 75%
8 m/s 90%

After these reductions, the Total Fluid Recovery Rate (TFRR) is calculated. Since the methodology proposed in
Section 5 is based on hourly weather forecasts provided by European Centres (e.g. Copernicus Marine Service),
the TFRR can be calculated every hour to obtain hourly time series of TFRR. As was mentioned before, TFRR is
the total volume recovered on board, this volume is composed of oil or emulsion and of seawater.

Once the TFRR is estimated, the Recovery Efficiency of the skimmer has to be taken into account. RE is defined
as the percentage of emulsion recovered by a skimmer with reference to the total volume of fluids recovered
(emulsion + seawater). The quantification of these coefficient is complex because the natural process involves met
ocean conditions, the particularities of each skimmer and the viscosity of the emulsion mainly. Therefore, the real
quantity of emulsion recovered without consider the seawater pumped aboard is defined as Oil/Emulsion Recovery
Rate (ORR).

Figure 17 – Conceptual scheme about the implication of the recovery efficiency coefficient

Two potential options are suggested in order to obtain RE percentage:

■ Option 1: current RC classification of the Recovery Efficiency based exclusively on the skimmer type
(Table 18)

Page 57 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Table 18 - Skimmer's Recovery Efficiency (RE) classification of the Response Calculator.

Skimmer type Recovery Efficiency (RE)

Weir 20%
Mix type (weir-brush) 30%
Other oleophilic types (brush, disc, belt…) 40%
High-speed systems (current buster) 70%

■ Option 2: to adopt the use of the Recovery Efficiency charts provided in ROC (see Figure 18) that takes
into account the minimum value obtained by both charts. Figure 18 (left panel) relates the type of skimmer
with the met ocean conditions and Figure 18 (right panel) relates the type of the skimmer with the viscosity
of the oil/emulsion. As mentioned, to obtain a RE for a skimming system ROC compares RE vs. met ocean
conditions and RE vs. viscosity and uses the lower of both values.

Figure 18 - Recovery Efficiency charts provided by ROC (left-chart: based on skimmer type and met ocean conditions; right-
chart: based on skimmer type and oil viscosity).

Page 58 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

5.4. Estimation of the encounter rate

The objective of this section is to identify, assess, and present one or more technical solutions for capturing the
encounter rate of the response asset with the oil slick in the simulator’s calculation in a realistic manner. These
aspects are addressed in step 2 of the proposed methodology.

The rate at which one can encounter a specific volume of floating oil is one of the most important parameters in the
overall assessment of a given response system’s ability to access and eliminate spilled oil (Allen et al., 2018). The
volume encounter rate will depend upon the system’s swath (i.e., the width of its passage through or over oil), its
speed while accessing the oil, and the average thickness of the oil encountered.

Thus, the encounter rate (see Figure 19) defines the amount of emulsion encountered by the recovery system per
time during the effective skimming period. It is usually defined as a function of the average thickness of the oil slick
(t), the speed of advance of the response system (v), and the swath (w) of the response system as defined in Eq.
(5). For the purpose of clarity, Equation 5 is presented again below:

𝐸𝑛𝑅 (𝑚3 ⁄𝑠) = 𝑡(𝑚) × 𝑤(𝑚) × 𝑣(𝑚⁄𝑠)

where t is the oil thickness, w is the swath length, and v is the tow velocity.

Figure 19 - Diagram of the encounter rate variables.

The estimation of the encounter rate according to Equation 5 is based on the following simplifications: i) the oil
thickness is constant in all the areas of the slick, ii) the oil slick is a homogeneous body and the slick always covers
all the swath section and iii) there is not any loss of oil from the system. However, in real spill response, the oil is
usually fragmented into patches and the boom failures are common due to different causes, such as the excess of
the first loss speed while towing and because the effect of the wind-waves mainly that produce the splash over the
boom.

To calculate the encounter rate more realistically the aforementioned factors have to be considered in the analysis.
Regarding the oil thickness, the oil spill models generally provide an average oil slick thickness, so there is little
room for improvement in this issue.

Therefore, to improve the calculation of the encounter rate (Eq. 5) the following aspects can be considered:

■ Fragmentation level of the slick: the oil slick is usually encountered disaggregated in several non-homogenous
patches of emulsified product as it is represented in Figure 19. The quantity of gaps or discontinuities is defined
by some authors as level of fragmentation of an oil slick. This value could be considered as a reduction
percentage in Equation 10, as follows:

𝐸𝑛𝑅 (𝑚3 ⁄𝑠) = 𝑡(𝑚) × 𝑤(𝑚) × 𝑣(𝑚⁄𝑠) × (1 − 𝐹𝑃) (10)

Page 59 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

where t, w, and v are defined in equation 5 and FP is the fragmentation percentage (0 to 100%) of the slick.
Since oil spill models do not provide the level of fragmentation of the slick, FP could be defined by the user
taking into account, for example, the field observations. Default value will be pre-defined as 0% of
fragmentation.

■ Boom losses: two options are provided to quantify the boom losses. The first one (Option 1) is to consider a
reduction percentage in Equation (11), as follows:

𝐸𝑛𝑅 (𝑚3 ⁄𝑠) = 𝑡(𝑚) × 𝑤(𝑚) × 𝑣(𝑚⁄𝑠 ) × (1 − 𝐹𝑃) × (1 − BLP) (11)

where t, w, v, and FP are defined in Equation 9 and BLP is the boom loss percentage (0 to 1) due to boom
failures, which has to be defined based on expert criteria. Several guidelines and reviews in mechanical
recovery define qualitative performance (good/poor, Figure 20) of the booms under specific conditions (Fingas
et al., 2011; Exxonmobil, 2014). The reduction percentages can be defined based on the qualitative
assessment available in the state-of-the-art and applying expert criteria.

Figure 20 – Qualitative assessment of the boom performance under wind, waves, and currents (Exxonmobil, 2014).

The second one (Option 2) is based on the work proposed by Kim et al (2019). In this work, the authors state a
formulation for the quantification of these loss rates due to boom failures (Kim et al., 2019). The implementation
of this formulation can be carried out to better evaluate these losses and subtract this rate directly from the
encounter rate at each time step of evaluation.

𝐸𝑛𝑅 (𝑚3 ⁄𝑠) = (𝑡(𝑚) × 𝑤(𝑚) × 𝑣(𝑚⁄𝑠) × (1 − 𝐹𝑃)) − 𝐵𝐿𝑅(𝑚3 /𝑠) (12)

where t, w, v, and FP are defined in equation 2 and BLR is the boom loss rate (m 3/s) due to boom failures.

The implementation of this formulation is based on complex equations that require the following variables: water
density, oil density, gravitational acceleration, oil-water surface tension, oil boom draft, oil relative density with the
water, wave steepness, buoyancy-weight ratio of the boom. It is worth mentioning that, as far as the authors of this
report are aware, there are no applications of this methodology in response simulator systems or software.

Finally, the estimation of the oil recovered by the mechanical recovery system can be calculated by taking into
account the Encounter Rate, as well as, the Nominal Capacity Reductions (R1, R2, and R3) and Recovery
Efficiency proposed in Section 5.3. The maximum oil or emulsion recovered by the skimmer and pumped on board
will depend on the capacity of the skimmer and the oil encountered (see Figure 21). If there is not enough
oil/emulsion encountered, then the maximum ORR rate possible will be equal to the Encounter Rate and the rest of
ratios can be derived based on this fact.

Page 60 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 21 - Conceptual scheme of the complete methodology for calculating recovery rates including the limit imposed by the
encounter rate.

5.5. Technical and logistic aspects associated with the deployment of response
assets at sea
The objective of this section is to identify and assess the technical and logistic aspects associated with the
deployment of response assets at sea, as well as to identify the critical issues and propose solutions on how to
integrate them into the system. These aspects are addressed in step 3 of the proposed methodology.

Once recovery estimation is calculated, it is possible to define the precise schedule of the recovery operations, usually
defined in blocks of transit – recovery – transit – unload (see Figure 22). The working hours are set by default for the
entire EU region, but they can also be defined by the user.

Figure 22 - Schedule of the recovery operations.

A brief review of the main operations shown in Figure 22 is provided below.

■ Mobilization Time

Page 61 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

This period takes into account the necessary time to activate the resources, prepare equipment, and travel from
home base to the emergency base. Therefore, it is suggested the use of pathing algorithms to calculate these transit
times. The activation and preparation times are properties of each resource. The resources will not be scheduled at
the response until reach the emergency base, once this point will be achieving the schedule for this resource will be
calculated for each following day as is shown in Figure 22.

𝑀𝑇(ℎ) = 𝑉𝑉(𝑚/ℎ) · Dhome−emergency (𝑚) + 𝐴𝑇(ℎ) + 𝑃𝑇(ℎ) (13)

where MT stands for Mobilization Time, VV stands for vessel velocity, Dbase−emergency is the path to travel from the
home base to the emergency base, AT stands for the Activation Time and PT for the Preparation Time.

■ Backup Time (1)

A daily backup time to take into account maintenance of the equipment, delays, and other unpredictable and
inefficient times is proposed. By default, the system is suggested to define a small percentage relative to the
complete working day to standardize this parametrization. It has to be highlighted that this time will be excluded
from the working day even when operations do not require it. Therefore, it is important to not overestimate this
value. A value smaller than 5% is suggested (i.e.: 5% of an 8h working day results in 25 min backup time, and for a
10h working day in 30 minutes). However, this backup time (default value) should be defined according to expert
criteria and user will be allowed to modify it. Backup-time (BT) can be defined as:

𝐵𝑇(ℎ) = 𝑊𝐷(ℎ) · 𝐵𝑇𝑃(%) (14)

where WD stands for the hours of the Working Day, and BTP for Backup-Time Percentage.

■ Transit Time (2)

Transit time is the time needed to navigate to the scene where the oil slick is located, and the recovery operations
will be carried out. This navigation can be calculated at the vessel navigational speed and based on pathfinding
algorithms. This time will take into account the update of the oil slick location based on the centre of mass evolution
provided by oil spill numerical models. Information about the evolution of the centre of mass of the spill is
calculated by oil spill models and the estimation of the transit time (when needed) can be performed using
modelled location provided by the oil spill model. Transit time (TT) will be estimated by means of the vessel velocity
(VV) and the distance (Dport-spill) from the centre of mass of the oil spill and the reference port of the vessel at
required time this phase. This phase also will include the deployment or recovery of all the necessary resources
(Auxiliary time) like booms and skimmer deployment before starting the skimming operations or its recovery before
transit to discharge the vessel tank at the port, as follows:

𝑇𝑇(ℎ) = 𝑉𝑉(𝑚/ℎ) · Dport−spil,t (𝑚) + 𝐴𝑢𝑥 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒(ℎ) (15)

■ Recovery period (3)

The recovery period (3) is the effective time during which the skimmer is actively pumping fluid on board. Based on
RC rules, the recovery period is limited when: i) the storage is full (90% total capacity); ii) endurance of vessel is
over; ii) daily work hours are over or iii) the total oil spill is recovered (whichever occurs first). Thus, the amount of
oil recovered can be calculated based on hourly rates for each hour as:

𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑂𝑖𝑙/𝐸𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑚3 ) = 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 (ℎ) × 𝑂𝑖𝑙/𝑒𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 (𝑚3 /ℎ) (16)

and the total amount of volume recovered on board can be calculated, also based on hourly rates for each hour as:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 recovered (𝑚3 ) = 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 (ℎ) × 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 (𝑚3 /ℎ) (17)

When a vessel is deployed conducting mechanical recovery, it will recover oil to fill its on board storage capacity.
The storage capacity will determine the maximum working time in which the collection operation can be carried out.
Thus, using the total fluid recovered ratios for each hour of work (TFRRt), and the precise recovery time (RT)
needed during the last hour of recovery to reach the storage capacity (RTt=n), the maximum Total Recovery Period
(TRP) will be reached, as reads the following condition (RTt = 1 hour and RTt=n < 1 hour):

Page 62 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

𝑆𝐶(𝑚3 ) = ∑𝑡=𝑛−1
𝑡=0 (𝑇𝐹𝑅𝑅 𝑡 · 𝑅𝑇𝑡 ) + (𝑇𝐹𝑅𝑅 𝑡=𝑛 · 𝑅𝑇𝑡=𝑛 ) (18)

Some vessels are equipped with on board decanting capacity that enhances their capacity to remain longer on the
scene. According to RC, only OSRV vessels can perform decanting based on two rules: i) 30 % of the daily total
amount of water in the recovered product can be decanted if heating is available and ii) if heating is not available
15% of the total amount of water in the recovered product can be decanted.

Finally, during recovery operations of dedicated vessels a specific break does is not included in Figure 22 can
occur and it is called “On scene stand by”. This term refers to hours of non-effective work on scene due to night
conditions, unexpected weather conditions, or simply taking a break in the middle of continuous deployment or
recovery operations.

■ Discharge, unload, or reload operations (4)

It refers to the transfer of the recovered oil/emulsion from skimmers to storage platforms. Time is based on the
discharge rate of the asset, following RC rules, discharge time is estimated with a 60% performance of the total
discharge capacity of the asset:

𝐷𝑇(ℎ) = 𝐷𝑅(𝑚3 /ℎ) · 60% (19)

where DT stands for Discharge time, and DR for the asset discharge rate. In the case of the reload operations for
other techniques a fixed time will be established to consider the recharge of dispersants and other resources.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the possibility that the response operation may not be completed or may
need to be modified due to:

− Breaks and failures of the equipment (normally associated with skimmer/pumps/booms due to high
currents, presence of debris, maintenance failures, bad practices…)
− Improvement of the met ocean forecast to obtain reliable forecasts
− Add new relevant information collected during the first stages of the response as aerial/satellite imagery, oil
properties measurements…

These problems make it necessary to re-evaluate the chosen alternatives, make changes to the selected
equipment, activate new assets... All these situations are considered to be allowed by a re-initialization functionality
of the simulations as described in Section 5.6.

5.6. Integration in the simulator’s calculations the changes in time to the surface oil
The objective of this section is to propose a technical solution for the integration in the simulator’s calculations the
changes in time to the surface oil: changes due to weathering of the oil and the changes (reduction) to the surface
oil as a result of the deployment and operation of oil spill response assets at sea.

As mentioned in Section 2.2, the system should integrate an oil spill model, and therefore, should be able to run oil
spill simulations to predict the trajectory, dispersion, and weathering of oil spills at sea considering the met ocean
conditions at the spill site or to import data from third-party oil spill models. In both cases, the oil spill numerical
model will provide the temporal and spatial evolution of the trajectory and dispersion of the oil spill as well as the
temporal evolution of the oil weathering (e.g. evaporation, emulsification) and the physicochemical properties of the
oil (density, viscosity).

To take into account the reduction of the surface oil as a result of the deployment and operations at sea, the new
system will be able to re-initialize the oil spill simulation with new information regarding the slick evolution, e.g.,
polygons obtained from observations (aerial observations, satellite images or RPAS images). A technical solution is
shown in Figure 23 to reinitialize the model and update data and inputs for both oil spill model and response
simulator. This process could be used to integrate the field data obtained during the emergency such as:

■ New oil spill properties (viscosity, density, content of water…)

■ Oil slick shape obtained from aerial imagery (satellite, flights, RPA…)
■ Automatically updated met ocean forecasts (to improve forecast accuracy)
■ Update equipment (assign new pieces or quit resources due to damages or failures)

Page 63 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

The re-initialization process will allow to load the information of the previous simulation and to include the new
information provided by the user. However and as shown in Table 7, the re-initialization of a simulation using the
previous results provided by the oil spill model (particles distribution that represent the oil location) and weathering
conditions (oil density, thickness, viscosity, emulsification…) is not a common functionality in oil spill models. As
shown in Figure 23, the update of the oil location can be addressed with the observations. To facilitate the
integration of the weathering conditions (oil density, thickness, viscosity, emulsification…) this information can be
included as a modification of the oil parameters in the oil database so that oil substance properties (density, water
content, viscosity…) would be needed to set up for each simulation.

Figure 23 - Re-initialization approach to update information and re-evaluate the response from a specific time.

5.7. Feasibility of having the simulator GIS based

The maturity of geospatial technologies makes it possible to integrate GIS functionalities into any system/simulator
that collects, manages and exploits geospatial information. Spatial data may also include attributes that provide
more information about the entity it represents. This helps users understand where things happen and why they
happen there.

As explained in previous sections, the use of Geospatial technologies for analysis and visualization is mandatory
for the proposed system. Therefore, the front-end will include a GIS solution to interact with the different geospatial
features that take place in any oil pollution response at sea.

Page 64 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

6. EXTERNAL DATA SOURCES

6.1. Relevant environmental data parameters needed for the oil spill model and the
simulator
The objective of this section is to gather a list of relevant environmental data parameters needed for the oil spill
model and the simulator that could be integrated in the system bringing it closer to the actual operations at sea.

The amount of data managed and required for the system and the numerical models involved depends largely on
the complexity of the process to be simulated and the capacity of the models to take into account the different
process that describes the evolution of the oil spills.

For oil spill modelling, geospatial information is needed to determine coastline limits and bathymetry of the area
where the emergency occurs being mandatory data for any calculation or set-up of an oil spill model. Moreover,
met ocean data are also required to calculate the movement of the oil once spilled into the sea. The main variables
required are: i) wind velocity at 10 m, ii) ocean current velocity (surface currents, depth-averaged current velocities,
and/or 3D current velocities), and iii) the wave-induced Stokes drift, which is calculated as a function of the gravity,
significant wave height, period, wave number and/or wave celerity (see Equations 2 and 3 in Section 3.1). The
wave parameters are usually associated to swell conditions and are provided by operational wave forecasting
systems.

Wind and ocean currents fields provided by operational forecasting systems are mandatory since oil trajectories
are mainly driven by wind and currents, especially offshore. The wave-induced Stokes drift is, especially offshore,
less relevant compared to the dominant effect of wind and currents in oil transport. The wave height has also a
large influence on the dispersion of oil into the water column. This variable is recommended to be provided by
numerical models. However, it can be also computed from wind speed. Temperature and seawater density (or
salinity) are also key variables during the weathering processes of the oil and for the oil transport in the water
column. These variables can be provided by numerical models or taken into account in a simplified manner (e.g.
constant values provided by the user or obtained from climatological data). Regarding river flows, the effect of the
river discharge in currents is provided by the hydrodynamic model. However to include these local effects, coastal
hydrodynamic models are required as explained in Section 6.4. Table 19 shows the list and prioritization of the
environmental parameters needed for the oil spill model. The prioritization has been established providing the
higher value (5) to the variables that are mandatory to simulate the oil trajectory offshore (wind and currents) and
the lower value (2) to the variables that can be provided in a simplified manner (e.g. constant values).

Table 19 - List of environmental variables for oil spill modelling.

Oil spill model Rank Justification

Ocean current velocity fields (surface, Main input for the simulation of the oil transport (2D surface,
5
depth-averaged, 3D currents) or 3D depth average or depth layered)
Wind fields at 10m above the sea
5 Main input for the simulation of the oil transport
surface
To define water/land automatically and to create the grid
Bathymetry 4 model. Otherwise, the user has to introduce into the system
the grid model.
To define water/land automatically and to create the grid
Coastline 4 model. Otherwise, the user has to introduce into the system
the coastline.
Wave fields (total significant height, ■ To calculate the wave-induced Stokes drift.
mean period, direction, swell/sea ■ To calculate the entrainment of the oil into the water
3
direction, swell/sea significant height, column. However, the wave height required for the
swell/sea period) entrainment can be computed from wind speed.
Important variable for weathering processes, to estimate
Seawater salinity 2
seawater density. However, it can be considered in a

Page 65 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Oil spill model Rank Justification

simplified manner (constant value provided by the user or
obtained from climatological data).
Important variable for weathering processes. However, it can
Seawater temperature 2 be considered in a simplified manner (constant value
provided by the user or obtained from climatological data).

For the response simulator, evaluating the response met ocean variables performs a key role to assess the
operability of the recovery operations, but also to determine the efficiency of the recovery resources. Table 20
shows the list and prioritization of the environmental parameters needed for the oil spill model. The prioritization
has been established providing the higher value (5) to the most important variables for the operability assessment
and the window of opportunity (i.e. wind, waves and currents) and the lower values to the variables that are less
relevant or less common.

Table 20 - List of environmental variables for the Response Simulator.

Response Simulator Rank Justification

Main input for the operability assessment and the
Ocean currents velocities 5
window of opportunity.
Main input for the operability assessment and the
Winds at 10 m above the sea surface 5 window of opportunity. It is also important for the
estimation of the efficiency reductions.
Wave fields (total significant height, mean Main input for the operability assessment and the
period, direction, swell/sea direction, swell/sea 5 window of opportunity. It is also important for the
significant height, swell/sea period) estimation of the efficiency reductions.
Important input for the operability assessment in
Visibility 3 cold climate, but less common that wind, waves and
currents.
Important input for the operability assessment, but
Environmental temperature 3
less common that wind, waves and currents.
Important for pathing algorithms and transit times
Bathymetry 3
automatically.
Important for pathing algorithms and transit times
Coastline 3
automatically.

Table 21 summarizes the list of environmental variables required for the oil spill model and the Response
Simulator, indicating the benefits and efforts of including this information into the new system.

Table 21 - List of environmental parameters needed for the oil spill model and the Response Simulator.

Oil spill model and Effort

Rank Benefit
Response Simulator

■ Main input for the simulation of the oil Raster data model
transport (2D surface, or 3D depth will use WMS and
average or depth layered) in the OSM. WCS
Ocean current velocity fields
(**) 2D will require
(surface, depth-averaged, 3D 5 ■ Main input for the operability assessment
visualization of
currents) and the window of opportunity in the RS.
vectors with
■ Visualization: to understand transport and
magnitude and
operability conditions.
direction

Page 66 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Oil spill model and Effort

Rank Benefit
Response Simulator
(***) 3D will require
specific libraries for
visualization (i.e.
Cesium)
■ Main input for the simulation of the oil Raster data model
transport in the OSM. (**) 2D will require
■ Main input for the operability assessment visualization of
Wind fields at 10m above the and the window of opportunity, and vectors with
5 magnitude and
sea surface important for the estimation of the
efficiency reductions in the RS. direction
■ Visualization: to understand transport and
operability conditions.
■ Main input for the operability assessment Raster data model
and the window of opportunity, and (*) WMS and WCS
Wave fields (total significant important for the estimation of the for sea direction
height, mean period, direction, efficiency reductions in the RS.
swell/sea direction, swell/sea 5 ■ Important to calculate the wave-induced
significant height, swell/sea Stokes drift and for the entrainment of the
period) oil into the water column in the OSM.
■ Visualization: to understand operability
conditions.
■ To define water/land automatically and to Raster data model
create the grid model in the OSM. WMS and WCS
Otherwise, the user has to introduce into (*) WMS for
the system the grid model. visualization and
■ Important for pathing algorithms and WCS to create the
Bathymetry 4 grid model
transit times automatically, however,
always regular shipping lanes will be
prioritized.
■ Visualization: to understand beaching
(over the model grid)
■ To define water/land automatically and to Vector data model
create the grid model. Otherwise, the user (*) WMS for
has to introduce into the system the visualization and
coastline. WFS to create the
■ Important for pathing algorithms and grid model
Coastline 4
transit times automatically, however,
always regular shipping lanes will be
prioritized.
■ Visualization: to understand beaching
(over the model grid)
Raster data model
■ Important input for the operability (*) WMS for
Visibility 3 assessment (RS) in cold climate, but less visualization and
common that wind, waves and currents. WCS for operability
assessment
Raster data model
■ Important input for the operability (*) WMS for
Environmental temperature 3 assessment (RS), but less common that visualization and
wind, waves and currents. WCS for operability
assessment

Page 67 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Oil spill model and Effort

Rank Benefit
Response Simulator
■ Important variable for weathering Raster data model
processes (OSM), to estimate seawater or a single data input
density. However, it can be considered in (*) WMS for
a simplified manner (constant value visualization and
Seawater salinity 3 provided by the user or obtained from WCS for weathering
climatological data). processes
■ Visualization: general information, e.g. to
obtain the mean conditions for the oil spill
model.
■ Important variable for weathering Raster data model
processes (OSM). However, it can be or a single data input
considered in a simplified manner (*) WMS for
(constant value provided by the user or visualization and
Seawater temperature 3 WCS for weathering
obtained from climatological data).
■ Visualization: general information, e.g. to processes
obtain the mean conditions for the oil spill
model.

6.2. Potential data sources and potential exchange mechanism

The objective of this section is to identify potential sources for each type of data including the potential exchange
mechanism from the source to the future IT system.

Regarding potential sources, first, the geospatial data sources are presented. Next, the main sources for the met
ocean data are provided. Met ocean data is without any doubt the most important source of uncertainty in any oil
spill simulation. Taking this assumption into account, the selection of the most accurate forecasts and robust
providers is critical. Europe has been making big efforts during the last decades to monitor and forecast the
environment and as a result of this work, currently exists active European actors in charge of developing this kind
of data. In this section, the best data providers and datasets will be selected including some alternatives as a
backup of the European providers and when possible, adding some sub-regional forecasts of specific Member
State institutions. Finally, besides the geospatial and met ocean data sources, this section also includes potential
sources for in-situ instrumental measurements and satellite imagery. In terms of real-time or near-real-time
monitoring in-situ instrumental measurements, satellite and aerial imagery is important information for helping
during the decision-making process. Specifically, satellite and aerial imagery allow the continuous re-evaluation of
the evolution and response operations when new data is available.

Regarding the potential exchange mechanism, the environmental parameters identified for the oil spill model and
response simulator make use of two data models: raster data model and vector data model. The use of standard
interoperability protocols significantly reduce the effort of environmental data integration. Data providers such as
Copernicus, EMODnet or NOAA provide standard interoperability protocols to access and download the
information (WMS, WCS, WFC, among others).

Two approaches should be further analysed in order to define the final system architecture design:

■ Repository of met ocean data replicated. In this approach, all met ocean information from data providers
must be hosted in the new system. This approach requires the software and hardware to host all the met
ocean data operationally.
■ Access to repositories on the fly. In this approach, only the required information is requested to the data
providers. This approach requires robust interoperability protocols to access the required met ocean data
on the fly.

Page 68 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

For the management of geospatial databases, such as bathymetries, topo-bathymetries and coastlines, two
approaches can be taken. The first option would be the same approach as with met ocean data, the system could
make use of interoperability protocols to access datasets managed by data providers. However, it should be noted
that these datasets are not constantly updated, so there is no need to establish a communication mechanism to
download and constantly update them. The second option would be to store these datasets in the system and
provide this information to the different subsystems without accessing the web services of the data providers,
avoiding this dependency.

It is worth mentioning that the exchange mechanism will be further analysed in WP 2- Conceptual and physical
system architecture for the tool and in the report on Part 2 of this project.

6.2.1. Geospatial data sources

Coastlines coordinate definition and bathymetry information are needed to develop an oil spill simulation. Several
regional databases are freely provided by many institutions, usually of their areas of interest. In the case of Europe,
the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet, emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en) provides a high-
resolution bathymetry (~115m) updated in 2020 (Figure 24). EMODnet also provides a recent development based
on the combination of information of satellite data (typically Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8) and the Global Tide Surge
Model (GTSM) to define digital coastlines for the European seas at LAT (Lowest Astronomical Tide), MSL (Mean-
Sea-Level), and MHW (Mean-High-Water).

Figure 24 - EMODnet Bathymetry viewing and download service (https://portal.emodnet-bathymetry.eu/).

Additionally, global geospatial data is selected as background for the European regional information. In this case,
the bathymetry product is provided by the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO, www.gebco.net/)
that provides a 15 arc-second resolution updated in 2021. Global coastline definition is selected from Global Self-
consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Geography Database (GSHHG, www.soest.hawaii.edu/pwessel/gshhg/)

Geospatial databases selected at the date of elaboration of this consultancy and their main characteristics are
summarized in Table 22.

Table 22 - Geospatial databases sorted by priority and their main characteristics.

Spatial
Provider Type Scale Name Format
resolution
Digital Terrain 3.75" arc ESRI ASCII, XYZ, CSV,
EMODnet Bathymetry Regional
Model (~444m) NetCDF, GeoTiff and SD

Page 69 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Spatial
Provider Type Scale Name Format
resolution
Satellite-
EMODnet Coastline Regional Variable ESRI Shapefile
Derived
Topo- ESRI ASCII, NetCDF, and
GEBCO Global GEBCO grid 15" arc (~115m)
bathymetry GeoTiff
ESRI Shapefile and Native
GSHHG Coastline Global GSHHG Variable
binary files

6.2.2. Oceanic data sources

Mainly, the production of the physical oceanic data is derived from current circulation models and wave
propagation models that usually run coupled to atmospheric models. In the case of Europe, the agency in charge of
this general forecast is the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF,
https://www.ecmwf.int/) which provides a global atmosphere and wave forecasts.

However, the European Union has developed during the last decades a robust service called Copernicus Marine
Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS, marine.copernicus.eu/) providing free, open, regular, and systematic
reference information on the blue (physical), white (sea ice), and green (biogeochemical) ocean state, variability
and dynamics across the global ocean and European regional seas. Furthermore, during the last years, the
evolution of this service is evolving to reach different scales: global, regional, and sub-regional datasets. Global
and regional providers are already successfully used in many downstream services and currently, CMEMS is under
the development of a new step forward to reach sub-regional and local scales.

CMEMS products that satisfy the system demands have been selected as top-priority providers. Alternative to
these products, the German Weather Service (DWD, openskiron.org/en/icon-gribs) offers a comprehensive sub-
regional grid European-collection of winds and waves forecasting (see Figure 25) in grib2 format that cover almost
the entire EU.

Figure 25 - Ocean forecast grids provided by CMEMS (left) and DWD (right).

The list of analysed providers at the time of elaboration of this consultancy is presented in Table 23.

Page 70 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Table 23 - Oceanic databases sorted by priority and main characteristics.

Resolution Temporal Exchange Access

Provider Scale Name Variables services
Spatial Temporal horizon

Surface currents, Subsetter open

Depth-averaged (https)
Atlantic-Iberian
CMEMS Regional currents, 3D currents, 0.028º hourly 5 days Opendap
Biscay Irish
Potential temperature, FTP
Salinity WMS
Significant wave Subsetter open
height (Hs), Wave (https)
Atlantic-Iberian
peak period (Tp) and Opendap
CMEMS Regional Biscay Irish 0.05º hourly 5 days
Wave mean direction FTP
(waves)
(Dir) of total spectrum, WMS
swell 1 and sea
Surface currents, Subsetter open
Depth-averaged (https)
Mediterranean
CMEMS Regional currents, 3D currents, 0.042º hourly 10 days Opendap
Sea
Potential temperature, FTP
Salinity WMS
Hs, Tp and Dir of total Subsetter open
spectrum, swell 1 and (https)
Mediterranean
CMEMS Regional sea 0.042º hourly 10 days Opendap
Sea (waves)
FTP
WMS
Surface currents, Subsetter open
Atlantic –
Depth-averaged (https)
European
CMEMS Regional currents, 3D currents, 0.03º hourly 6 days Opendap
North West
Potential temperature, FTP
Shelf
Salinity WMS
Atlantic – Hs, Tp and Dir of total Subsetter open
European spectrum, swell 1 and (https)
CMEMS Regional 0.014ºx0.03º hourly 6 days
North West sea Opendap
Shelf (waves)

Page 71 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Resolution Temporal Exchange Access

Provider Scale Name Variables services
Spatial Temporal horizon

FTP
WMS
Surface currents, Subsetter open
Depth-averaged (https)
CMEMS Regional Baltic Sea currents, 3D currents, 2km hourly 6 days Opendap
Potential temperature, FTP
Salinity WMS
Hs, Tp and Dir of total Subsetter open
spectrum, swell 1 and (https)
Baltic Sea
CMEMS Regional sea 2km hourly 6 days Opendap
(waves)
FTP
WMS
Surface currents, Subsetter open
Depth-averaged (https)
CMEMS Regional Black Sea currents, 3D currents, 0.025º hourly 10 days Opendap
Potential temperature, FTP
Salinity WMS
Hs, Tp and Dir of total Subsetter open
spectrum, swell 1 and (https)
Black Sea sea Opendap
CMEMS Regional 0.025º hourly 10 days
(waves) FTP
WMS

Surface currents, Subsetter open

Depth-averaged (https)
currents, 3D currents, Opendap
CMEMS Regional Arctic 12.5km hourly 11 days
Potential temperature, FTP
Salinity WMS

Page 72 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Resolution Temporal Exchange Access

Provider Scale Name Variables services
Spatial Temporal horizon

Hs, Tp and Dir of total Subsetter open

spectrum, swell 1 and (https)
sea Opendap
CMEMS Regional Arctic (waves) 3km hourly 10 days
FTP
WMS

Hs, Tp and Dir of hourly (0-78h) open

ICONgrids
DWD Sub-Regional swell and sea 0.063º 3-hourly (78- DWD
(waves)
120h)
Surface currents, Subsetter open
Depth-averaged (https)
currents, 3D currents, Opendap
CMEMS Global Global 0.083º hourly 10 days
Potential temperature, FTP
Salinity WMS

Hs, Tp and Dir of total Subsetter open

spectrum, swell 1 and (https)
sea Opendap
CMEMS Global Global (waves) 0.083º 3-hourly 10 days
FTP
WMS

Hs, Tp and Dir of total 3-hourly (0-144h) FTP, open

HRES-WAM
ECMWF Global spectrum 0.4º 6-hourly (150- 10 days AmazonS3,
(waves)
240h) Azure
Hs, Tp and Dir of total Hourly (0-90h) FTP, Under
Set - II spectrum, swell 1 and 3-hourly (93- AmazonS3, request or
ECMWF Global HRES-WAM sea 0.1º 144h) 10 days Azure Open- payment
(waves) 6-hourly (150- access
240h)

Page 73 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

6.2.3. Meteorological data sources

Although meteorological numerical modelling was developed before oceanic ones, this data is usually more
restricted to be freely accessed. Following the same criterion as the used for oceanic data, the most important and
recognized provider in Europe is ECMWF which provides global forecast products to feed regional models of
Members States Meteorological institutes. Since the top resolution product is not open, access to this provider has
to be requested by EMSA. Additionally, open data products of this provider have a maximum resolution of 0.4º and
maximum temporal resolution of three hourly data (see Figure 26). It is important to highlight the relevance of
meteorological data for the new system. High-resolution meteorological data, and specially wind fields, are of high-
relevance to provide accurate simulations and to have a realistic system. Therefore, to have access to high-
resolution meteorological data will be of paramount importance for the future system.

Regional atmospheric forecasts of the state members are difficult to be accessed (restricted under request or
payment) and usually, they lack format homogeneity among each other. For that reason, a standard input method
will be required following the standards of netCDF format and CF-conventions to allow the Member States to feed
the system with its forecasts if fulfil these standards.

Global Forecast System (GFS, https://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/emc/pages/numerical_forecast_systems/gfs.php)

provided by NOAA is selected as a backup provider because of its extensive use worldwide and free access
through NOAA NOMADS distribution system (https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/). Finally, DWD European forecasts,
which is also a publicly available data source, are considered to provide the system sub-regional grids of the main
atmospheric variables needed.

Figure 26 - Visualization of ECMWF HRES open-data (wind at 10m above ground).

In Table 24 the selected databases at the time of the development of this consultancy are summarized with their
main characteristics related to their spatial and temporal resolution.

Page 74 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Table 24 - Atmospheric databases sorted by priority and main characteristics.

Variables Resolution Temporal Exchange Access

Priority Provider Scale Name services
Spatial Temporal horizon

Winds at 10m Hourly (0-90h) FTP, Amazon Under

Visibility 3-hourly (93- S3, Azure request or
1 ECMWF Global Set I - HRES 0.1º 144h) 10 days payment
6-hourly (150-
360h)
Winds at 10m Direct open
2 DWD Sub-Regional ICONgrids 0.063º hourly (0-78h) 5 days download grib
(https)
Winds at 10m Hourly (0-120h) Opendap, open
3 NOAA Global GFS Visibility 0.25º 3-hourly (120- 16 days FTP, https,
384h) gribfilter
Winds at 10m 3-hourly (0-144h) FTP, Amazon open
4 ECMWF Global HRES (open) 0.4º 6-hourly (150- 10 days S3, Azure
240h)

Page 75 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

6.2.4. In-situ instrumental measurements

Near real-time instrumental information during an emergency is highly important to support decision-making. This
information can be very useful to help in short-term decisions if can be easily and well visualized. Based on the
approach of generating a system managed through a GIS interface, the feasibility of an agile visualization and
access to instrumental data is intended.

At this point, another development in the framework of CMEMS is selected. The Copernicus Marine In Situ TAC
(http://www.marineinsitu.eu/) provides research and operational framework to develop and deliver In Situ
observations and derived products based on such observations, to address progressively global and regional
needs for monitoring, modelling, or downstream services development. This development offers open access to a
wide range of near-real-time data through its online dashboard (see Figure 27). The complete list of the data
categories provided by the In Situ Tac portal vs the desired ones for the system is summarized in Table 25.

Table 25 - CMEMS In Situ TAC categories classified as relevant and non-relevant ones for being integrated into the system.

Relevant categories Non-relevant categories

High-Frequency Radars (HF) Saildrones (SD)

Moorings (MO) Thermistor chains (TX)
River Flows (RF) Ferrybox (FB)
Tide Gauges (TG) XBTs (XB)
Profilers (PF) Mini Loggers (ML)
Gliders (GL) CTDs (CT)
Drifters (DB) Thermosalinometer (TS)
Drifters (DC) Bottles (BO)
Sea mammals (SM)

Figure 27 - Snapshot of CMEMS In Situ TAC dashboard (link: http://www.marineinsitu.eu/dashboard/).

Page 76 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

6.2.5. Satellite providers

Satellite images are applied to a wide range of applications. It plays a vital role in monitoring environmental
changes due to the large areas they can monitor periodically. Two main modes of remote sensing techniques are
frequently used for Earth Observation, named active mode and passive mode:

■ in active mode, the signals are propagated from the artificial sensors and the corresponding reflected
radiations are observed,
■ in passive mode, the naturally available radiations due to sun illumination are observed in passive remote
sensing.

In terms of their limitations, the passive sensors can be limited on night sensing due to lack of sunlight or clouds.
But active sensors are more advantageous with acquiring images all through the day and even under different
cloud conditions and season variability. Thus, satellite images differ with respect to their mode of sensing and type
of resolution. Further, the availability of these data again varies with the acquisition time period due to different
satellite revisit capability. In the case of resolution, they are again categorized into four different types such as
spectral, spatial, temporal, and radiometric resolution. Table 26 provides more information about the selected open
data satellites, such as the type of sensor, revisit periods and the spatial resolution of their products.

Table 26 – Characteristics of the selected satellites.

Satellite Type of Sensor Spatial resolution (m) Revisit period (days)

Sentinel 1 SAR 9-40 6

Sentinel 2 MSI (13 bands) 10-60 5
Sentinel 3 MSI (21 bands) 300-1200 <3
LandSat 8 MSI (11 bands) 15 - 100 16
LandSat 9 MSI (11 bands) 15 - 30 16
MODIS MSI (36 bands) 250 -1000 <2
VIIRIS MSI (22 bands) 375 - 1500 <1
PACE MSI 1000 2

The use of satellite data is not a priority for the system. However, the ability to observe the European seas using
these technologies makes it of great interest to incorporate this information into the system.

Depending on the sensor technologies, we can classify them into multispectral sensors and radar sensors. Radar
sensors are active sensors that send a radar signal and receive it, while passive sensors use the reflection of solar
radiation to obtain information. This feature is important, since radar sensors are not conditioned by sunless hours
or clouds, while multispectral sensors cannot pass through clouds or operate without the reflection of solar
radiation.

Other important characteristics are the spatial, temporal and spectral resolution of the sensor. In this sense, one
aspect that must be highlighted, in order to monitor the evolution of a spill with these technologies, is the temporal
resolution or revisit time of the satellite. To reduce revisit times it is interesting to use as many satellites as
possible. For example, in the case of Landsat and Sentinel, the combination of the multispectral satellites allows
reducing the revisit times to 2 days in Europe.

As we can see in Table 26, there are three main providers of open satellite data: Copernicus, USGS and NASA.
Each provider serve the data in a similar way so the integration effort would be based on the development of three
integration processes (ETL).

As previously mentioned, the integration of the data sources will be further analysed in Work Package (WP) 2 and
in the report on Part 2 of this project.

Page 77 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

6.3. Proposal of minimum data providers

In conclusion, a list of minimum data providers and databases is shown in Table 27, summarizing the most
relevant, robust regional providers that covers the EU region (if regional is not available, a global database is
selected).

Additionally, Table 28 summarizes the additional information previously analysed that is not a priority for the
system but can provide added value to support decision making.

Table 27 - Minimum databases and providers to be implemented in the new system to cover the EU region.

SCALE PROVIDER TYPE NAME

Regional EMODnet Geo-spatial (bathymetry) Digital Terrain Model
Regional EMODnet Geo-spatial (coastline) Satellite-Derived Coastlines
Regional CMEMS Oceanic Atlantic-Iberian Biscay Irish
Regional CMEMS Oceanic Mediterranean Sea
Regional CMEMS Oceanic Atlantic – European North West Shelf
Regional CMEMS Oceanic Baltic Sea
Regional CMEMS Oceanic Black Sea
Regional CMEMS Oceanic (waves) Atlantic-Iberian Biscay Irish (waves)
Regional CMEMS Oceanic (waves) Mediterranean Sea (waves)
Regional CMEMS Oceanic (waves) Atlantic – European North West Shelf (waves)
Regional CMEMS Oceanic (waves) Baltic Sea (waves)
Regional CMEMS Oceanic(waves) Black Sea (waves)
Global ECMWF Meteorological Set I – HRES (need to request access)

Table 28 – Summary of additional databases.

SCALE PROVIDER TYPE NAME

Global GEBCO Geo-spatial (bathymetry) GEBCO grid
Global GSHHG Geo-spatial (coastline) GSHHG Coastlines
Global CMEMS Oceanic Global
Global CMEMS Oceanic (waves) Global (waves)
Global NOAA Meteorological GFS
Global CMEMS Instrumental (In Situ TAC) High-Frequency Radars
Global CMEMS Instrumental (In Situ TAC) Moorings
Global CMEMS Instrumental (In Situ TAC) River Flows
Global CMEMS Instrumental (In Situ TAC) Tide Gauges
Global CMEMS Instrumental (In Situ TAC) Profilers
Global CMEMS Instrumental (In Situ TAC) Gliders
Global CMEMS Instrumental (In Situ TAC) Drifters

Page 78 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

SCALE PROVIDER TYPE NAME

Global COPERNICUS Satellite (EU) Sentinel 1
Global COPERNICUS Satellite (EU) Sentinel 2
Global COPERNICUS Satellite (EU) Sentinel 3
Global USGS Satellite (EEUU) LandSat 8
Global USGS Satellite (EEUU) LandSat 9
Global NASA Satellite (EEUU) MODIS
Global NASA Satellite (EEUU) VIIRIS
Global NASA Satellite (EEUU) PACE (launch 2023)

6.4. Possibility of integrating the impact of coastal environmental data

The objective of this section is to identify and assess the possibility of integrating the impact of coastal
environmental data (e.g. river outlets, islands/topography, local currents) and tides and near shore bathymetry to
better estimate and reflect a spill occurring near the coast.

The success of the application of oil spill numerical models to forecast oil slick trajectories depends on the
formulation of the model itself, but more importantly on the input data (wind, currents, and waves) provided by the
met ocean forecasting systems.

The evolution of operational oceanography for oil spill response shows that noticeable advances have been made
in modelling at a regional scale (O(km)). As shown in previous sections, nowadays there are a high number of
operational oceanography systems that provides the forecast of ocean currents at regional scale. For example,
Copernicus Marine Service provides the forecast of currents and other ocean variables with a spatial resolution of
2- 3 km, depending on the area. These currents are appropriate to simulate the oil in the open sea but have
limitations for the simulation of the oil spill trajectory in coastal and local areas.

To improve the accuracy of the simulations near the coast, taking into account the aforementioned variables (river
outlets, islands, local currents, tides, shore bathymetry) downscaled currents are mandatory. To obtain the high-
resolution currents required in coastal areas, local hydrodynamic models has to be nested to the regional models
(e.g. CMEMS) in order to include the effect of coastal and local hydrodynamics. As an example, Figure 28 and
Figure 29 show a surface currents field provided by a regional model (CMEMS - Atlantic-Iberian Biscay Irish) and a
coastal model (Puertos del Estado - Spain) in the Gulf of Biscay.

Page 79 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 28- Example of surface currents provided by a regional system (CMEMS - Atlantic-Iberian Biscay Irish) in the Gulf of
Biscay.

Figure 29 - Example of surface currents provided by a coastal forecast system (Puertos del Estado - Spain) in the Gulf of
Biscay.

Therefore, to improve near-shore oil spill simulations, the model has to be forced with high-resolution currents
(O(m)) provided by coastal or local hydrodynamic models. In last years, many efforts have been carried out to
obtain high-resolution currents in coastal areas. However, the available systems have been developed and are
managed by each Member State. This implies that the integration of this data into the system is difficult since the
lack of homogeneity and accessibility (in many cases restricted under request or payment). In this way, it is
intended that the system will provide a method to feed standard input data based on Network Common Data Form
(NetCDF, www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/) and Climate and Forecast Metadata Conventions
(https://cfconventions.org/) to permit its use.

Besides currents, high-resolution winds and waves are also required to improve the simulations near the coast.
High-resolution winds (2 – 5 km) provided by the national agencies of each Member State will contribute to
increase the accuracy of the simulations. Regarding waves, it would be also desirable to use high-resolution wave
fields. Altough waves play a minor role compared to the effect of the wind and currents on oil transport, they are an
important variable for the resonse simulator.

Moreover, a high-resolution grid and coastline for the oil spill model are also required. The cartographic data of the
coastal zone are provided by national Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) through standard interoperability protocols
in accordance with the INSPIRE Directive. Therefore, the system must be able to integrate cartographic information
from national agencies in charge of SDIs. The information provided by SDIs is usually "static", not updated hourly
or daily. This high-resolution information will allow the model to improve the beaching. However, note that the
improvement of cartographic data, which implies an improvement of the grid’s model and the coastline, is irrelevant
if there is not an improvement in the forcings, especially in the currents and wind fields through the incorporation of
coastal and local hydrodynamics systems.

Page 80 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

As mentioned, national meteorological agencies and other institutions that depends on each EU Member State,
such as port authorities, oceanographic centres or hydrographic confederations provide coastal environmental
data. Unfortunately, the maturity of the interoperability protocols is very diverse. Therefore, while the integration of
"static" data provided by national SDIs could be a straightforward process, the integration of data from "dynamic"
national or regional data providers requires ad hoc developments. Although the integration of existing EU Member
States' met ocean services for the coastal zone require ad hoc developments, the new phase of the Copernicus
Marine Service focuses on the design of a Coastal Service for the EU. Therefore, in the near future, the Copernicus
Coastal Service would facilitate the use and exploitation of coastal met ocean data.

6.5. Possibility to have real time met ocean data integrated in the system
The objective of this section is to identify and assess the possibility to have real time met ocean data integrated in
the tool. e.g. met ocean data from buoys, HF radars, met ocean stations and to discuss if it could be integrated in
the oil spill model calculations and in the simulator in order to “calibrate” the tool.

As mentioned in Section 6.2.4, the Copernicus Marine In Situ TAC (http://www.marineinsitu.eu/) provides research
and operational framework to develop and deliver In Situ observations and derived products based on such
observations, to address progressively global and regional needs for monitoring, modelling, or downstream
services development. From the measurements provided by Copernicus, High-Frequency Radars, Moorings, River
Flows, Tide Gauges and Drifters have been identified as data of interest to support decision-making.

Integration of real time met ocean data depends on the data providers. As it has been explained before, there is a
high diversity of data formats provided by data providers. The Copernicus Marine Service, the in situ Thematic
Assembly Centre (TAC), is currently making a big effort coordinating the distributed network of production centres,
to provide a centralized access to all the monitoring networks in near real time. However, there is still a significant
diversity related with each production centre (formats, vocabulary, etc.).Therefore, the status of the CMEMS on-site
CT roadmap should be further analysed to ensure the integration of all in situ data providers into the system. The
integration of the data into the new system will be further analysed in Work Package (WP) 2 and in the report on
Part 2 of this project.

Real time met ocean data will allow the user to monitor the environmental conditions and to carry out visual
comparisons between actual and numerical data (e.g. oil trajectories versus drifter trajectories, visualization of
weather forecasts, instrumental near-real-time data, etc…). This visualization will be feasible based on the use of a
GIS-based interface for the future system as it is planned.

However, the calibration of the system with these measurements is a complex task, which can be explained in two
stages:

■ The first one is the calibration of the forcings of the oil spill model and the simulator, i.e. the calibration of the
wind, currents, and waves provided by the met ocean numerical models. The calibration of hydrodynamic,
ocean, and atmospheric models is a complex task that requires a large amount of data (spatial and temporal
information) and the application of complex techniques difficult to be addressed by the system in real time. The
calibration of the met ocean model’s outputs (wind, waves, and currents) with punctual measurements is not a
robust method since the met ocean variables used by the system are dynamic, i.e. spatially and temporally
varying.
■ The second one is the calibration of the oil spill trajectory model using drifting buoys. The options for the
calibration of the oil spill model are explained in Section 3.5.

Page 81 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

7. DATABASE OF EUROPEAN OIL POLLUTION

RESOURCES AND EQUIPMENT
Complementary to the external data described in Section 6, the system also will require the collection and
production of its databases to manage oil substances properties and the equipment and its relevant properties.

It is worth mentioning that the integration of the databases will be further analysed in Work Package (WP) 2 and in
the report on Part 2 of this project.

7.1. Database of European oil pollution resources and equipment

EMSA will provide an updated database of European oil pollution resources and equipment to be used as basis.
The user should be able to add resources to the database and modify existing ones. This section provides the best
way to do it in an easy and user-friendly manner, taking into account the option of having bulk updates via excel
files.

The approach to guarantee:

■ the use of the oil pollution resources and equipment database by other subsystems or software
■ functionalities to add resources to the database and modify existing ones
■ having bulk updates via excel files

would be the design and development of the oil pollution resources and equipment subsystem, which should be
based on a relational database management system and an API to ensure communications (accesses/updates)
with the database (see Figure 30).

Figure 30 - Database management system approach.

7.2. Database of oils to be used by the oil spill model

The system shall incorporate a database of oils transiting European waters that could be provided by EMSA (if
available). The oil database will include the physical and chemical properties of the different oils, such as the
density, viscosity, pour point, API, etc. It should be noted that the variables required by oil spill models may differ
depending on the model.

As for the resources and equipment database the approach to guarantee:

■ the use of the oil database by the oil spill model

■ functionalities to add new oils to the oil database
■ having bulk updates via excel files

would be the design and development of the oil pollution subsystem, which should be based on a relational
database management system and an API to ensure communications (accesses/updates) with the database.

In terms of functionalities for both databases, resources and equipment database and oil database:

Page 82 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ It is proposed the use of a shared database that will be capable to be managed dynamically. This means
that based on the user and his role, each user would have specific permissions to get, create, modify,
delete, and copy resources of the general database.
■ The user should be able to add new products, as well as modify existing ones. The data stored in the oil
database must be accessible through an API to obtain, update and add more information. An interface
(front-end) should be designed to manage the oil database through the API. Bulk updates via excel files (or
other formats) should be included as an extra functionality.

The oil database integrated into the system will allow the user to select an adequate oil at the beginning of the
incident when there is no information on the exact type of oil spilled. Note that the properties of the database
include general information that allows identifying the oil in general terms, for example, crude or refined oil or light
or heavy oil.

If the EMSA database is not available, the following options are suggested to assist the user in the initial stage of
the oil spill:

■ Option 1: To create an oil database from open-source databases such as ADIOS oil database
developed by NOAA.
■ Option 2: To create a simplified list with 4 types of oils classified according to their density, viscosity, and
API as Crude, Refined, Heavy and Light products. Each group can be constituted by one or several
representative oils obtained from available databases or based on the mean values of the selected list of
oils.

In case of accident and while detailed information about the oil spilled is not available, these databases (EMSA
database, option 1 or option 2) will provide initial information to allow the user to select an oil type.

Page 83 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

8. REFERENCES
■ Aamo, O.; Downing, K.; Reed, M., 1996. Calibration, verification, and sensitivity analysis of the IKU oil
spill contingency and response (OSCAR) model system. Report, 42, 4048.
■ Abascal, A.J., Castanedo, S., Gutiérrez, A.D., Comerma, E., Medina, R., y Losada, I.J., 2008.
Description and application of the operational oil spill forecast system TESEO. Proceedings of the 2008
International Oil Spill Conference.
■ Abascal, A.J., Castanedo, S., Gutierrez, A.D., Comerma, E., Medina R., Losada, I.J. 2007. TESEO, an
operational system for simulating oil spills trajectories and fate processes. Proceedings, ISOPE-2007:
The 17th International Offshore Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference. Lisbon, Portugal, 3, 1751-
1758.
■ Abascal, A.J., Castanedo, S., Mendez, F.J., Medina, R., and Losada, I.J., 2009a. Calibration of a
Lagrangian transport model using drifting buoys deployed during the Prestige oil spill. Journal of
Coastal Research, 25 (1), 80-90.
■ Abascal, A.J., Castanedo, S., Medina, R., Losada, I.J., Alvarez-Fanjul, E., 2009b. Application of HF
radar currents to oil spill modelling. Marine pollution bulletin, 58(2), 238-248.
■ Abascal, A. J., Castanedo, S., Fernández, V., Medina, R., 2012. Backtracking drifting objects using
surface currents from High-Frequency (HF) radar technology (DOI: 10.1007/s10236-012-0546-49),
Ocean Dynamics, 62 (7), 1073-1089.
■ Abascal, A.J., Sanchez, J., Chiri, H., Ferrer, M.I., Cárdenas, M., Gallego, A., Castanedo, S., Medina,
R., Alonso-Martirena, A., Berx, B., Turrell, W.R., Hughes, S.L., 2017a. Operational oil spill trajectory
modelling using HF Radar currents: A northwest European continental shelf case study. Marine
Pollution Bulletin , 119, 336-350.
■ Abascal, A.J., Castanedo, S., Núñez, P., Mellor, A., Clements, A., Pérez, B., Cárdenas, M., Chiri, H.,
Medina, R., 2017b. A high-resolution operational forecast system for oil spill response in Belfast Lough.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 114, 302-314.
■ Allen, A.A., Dale, D.H., Gregory, Ch., 1999. Assessment of Potential Oil Spill Recovery Capabilities,
Proceedings, 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washington
■ 1999 Allen, 2018. Encounter Rate In Oil Spill Response Explained – Minibytes #2,
https://www.elastec.com/encounter-rate-oil-spill-response/#definitions (accessed on March 2022).
■ Ambjörn, C., 2007. Seatrack Web, forecasts of oil spills, a new versión. 2006 IEEE US/EU Baltic
International Symposium, Conference paper, 10.1109/BALTIC.2006.7266187.
■ Ambjörn, C., Liungman, O., Mattsson, J., Håkansson, B., 2011. Seatrack Web: The HELCOM Tool for
Oil Spill Prediction and Identification of Illegal Polluters. In book: Oil Pollution in the Baltic Sea, DOI:
10.1007/698_2011_120
■ Beegle-Krause, C.J., 2001. General NOAA Oil Modeling Environment (GNOME): A New Spill
Trajectory Model. IOSC 2001 Proceedings, Tampa, FL, St. Louis, MO: Mira Digital Publishing, Inc. Vol.
2: pp. 865-871.
■ Beegle-Krause, CJ, O’Connor, C., Watabayashi, G., Zelo, I., Childs, C., 2007. NOAA Safe Seas
Exercise 2006: new data streams, data communication and forecasting capabilities for spill forecasting.
AMOP 2007 Proceedings, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Ottawa, Ont.: Environment Canada.
■ BSEE and Genwest System, Inc., 2016. Estimated Recovery System Potential (ERSP) Calculator.
User Manual (https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/fact-sheet/technology-and-
research/mechrecovery-man.pdf, accessed on March 2022).
■ Bonvicini S., Scarponi G.E., Bernardini G., Cassina L., Collina A., Cozzani V., 2020, Offshore Oil Spills
Emergency Response: a Method for Response Gap Analysis, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 82,
127-132.
■ Carracedo, P., Torres-López, S., Barreiro, M., Montero, P., Balseiro, C.F., Penabad, E., Leitao, P.C.,
Pérez-Muñuzuri, V., 2006. Improvement of pollutant drift forecast system applied to the Prestige oil
spills in Galicia coast (NW of Spain): Development of an operational system. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
53, 350-360.
■ Castanedo, S., Medina, R., Losada, I.J., Vidal, C., Méndez, F.J., Osorio, A., Juanes, J.A., Puente, A.,
2006. The Prestige oil spill in Cantabria (Bay of Biscay) Part I: operational forecasting system for quick
response, risk assessment and protection of natural resources. Journal of Coastal Research 22 (6),
1474–1489.
■ Castanedo, S., Perez-Diaz, B., Abascal, A.J., Cardenas, M., Olabarrieta, M., Medina, R., Receveur, J.,
Evrard, E., Guyomarch, J., 2014. A high resolution operational oil spill model at santander bay (Spain):

Page 84 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

implementation and validation. Proceedings International Oil Spill Conference 2014, American
Petroleum Institute, 516-530.
■ Chiri, H., Abascal, A.J., Castanedo, S., 2020. Deep oil spill hazard assessment based on spatio-
temporal met-ocean patterns, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 154.
■ Coppini, G., De Dominicis, M., Zodiatis, G., Lardner, R., Pinardi, N., Santoleri, R., Colella, S., Bignami,
F., Hayes, D.R., Soloviev, D., Georgiou, G., Kallos, G., 2011. Hindcast of oil-spill pollution during the
Lebanon crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean July–August 2006, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62, 140–153.
■ Cucco A., Daniel P., 2016. Numerical Modeling of Oil Pollution in the Western Mediterranean Sea, In:
Carpenter A., Kostianoy A. (eds) Oil Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea: Part I. The Handbook of
Environmental Chemistry, vol 83. Springer, Cham
■ Dagestad, K.-F., Röhrs, J., Breivik, Ø., Ådlandsvik, B., 2018. OpenDrift v1.0: a generic framework for
trajectory modelling, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1405-1420.
■ Dale, 2011. ROC Users Guide Dean Dale, Genwest Systems, Inc. (https://www.genwest.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/ROC_User-Guide.pdf, accesed on March 2022).
■ Dagorn, L. and Dumont, A., 2013. Manufactured Spill Response Booms: Operational Guide. Guide
produced by Cedre (http://wwz.cedre.fr/en/content/download/1768/139993/file/extract-manufactured-
booms.pdf, accessed on March 2022).
■ Dale, D. and Genwest Systems Inc, 2011. Response Options Calculator (ROC) User Guide and
Technical Documentation. Available on: http://genwest.com/project/roc/
■ Daniel, P., Marty, F., Josse, P., Skandrani, C., Benshila, R., 2003. Improvement of Drift Calculation in
MOTHY Operational Oil Spill Prediction System”, in Proceedings of the 2003 International Oil Spill
Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
■ Daniel, P., Josse, P., Dandin, P., Lefevre, J.M., Lery, G., Cabioc’h, F., Gouriou, V., 2004. Forecasting
the Prestige oil spills, Interspill 2004, Presentation no. 402.
■ Daniel, P., Josse, P., Dandin, P., 2005. Further improvement of drift forecast at sea based on
operational oceanography systems. WIT Trans. Built Environ, 78.
■ Daniel, P., Paradis, D., Gouriou, V., Le Roux, A., Garreau, P., Le Roux, J.-F., Louazel, S., 2021.
Forecast of oil slick drift from Ulysse/ CSL Virginia and Grande America accidents, Proceedings of the
International Oil Spill Conference , Volume 2021 (1).
■ Dean, R.G., Dalrymple, R.A., 1991. Water wave mechanics for engineers and scientists, Advanced
Series on Ocean Engineering, 2. World Scientific, Singapore.
■ De Dominicis, M., Pinardi, N., Zodiatis, G., and Lardner, R., 2013a. MEDSLIK-II, a Lagrangian marine
surface oil spill model for short-term forecasting – Part 1: Theory, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 1851-1869.
■ De Dominicis, M., Pinardi, N., Zodiatis, G., and Archetti, R., 2013b. MEDSLIK-II, a Lagrangian marine
surface oil spill model for short-term forecasting – Part 2: Numerical simulations and validations,
Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 1871-1888.
■ Dulière, V., Ovidio, F., Legrand, S., 2013. Development of an integrated software for forecasting the
impacts of accidental oil pollution-OSERIT-SD/ND/10, Belgian Science Policy Office.
(https://www.belspo.be/belspo/ssd/science/Reports/OSERIT_FinRep_AD.pdf (accessed on March
2022).
■ EMSA, 2009. Manual on the applicability of oil spill dispersants. http://www.emsa.europa.eu/opr-
documents/download/1166/719/23.html ((accessed on April 2022).
■ EPA, 1999. Understanding Oil Spills And Oil Spill Response.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-01/documents/ospguide99.pdf (accessed on March 2022).
■ EPPR, 2017, Circumpolar Oil Spill Response Viability Analysis: Technical Report. 134pp
■ ExxonMobil, 2014. Oil Spill Response Field Manual. https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-
/media/Global/Files/risk-management-and-safety/Oil-Spill-Response-Field-Manual_2014.pdf (accessed
on April 2022).
■ Fernandes, R., 2001. Modelação de Derrames de Hidrocarbonetos, (In English: Modelling of Oil Spills).
Final Report in Environmental Engineering Degree, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa.
http://www.mohid.com/PublicData/Products/Thesis/TFC_RodrigoFernandes.pdf (accessed on March
2022).
■ Fernandes, R., Neves, R., Viegas, C., Leitão, P., 2013. Integration of an Oil and Inert Spill Model in a
Framework for Risk Management of Spills at Sea: A Case Study for the Atlantic Area. Proceedings of
the Thirty-sixth AMOP Technical 21 Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response,
Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp. 326-353, 2013.

Page 85 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ Fernandes, 2018. Risk Management of Coastal Pollution from Oil Spills Supported by Operational
Numerical Modelling. PhD Thesis, Universidade de Lisboa.
■ Fingas, M., 2011. Weather Effects on Oil Spill Countermeasures. Oil Spill Science and Technology,
339-426.
■ Janeiro, J., Zacharioudaki, A., Sarhadi, E., Neves, A., and Martins, F., 2014. Enhancing the
management response to oil spills in the Tuscany Archipelago through operational modelling, Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 85(2).
■ Daniel, P., 1996. Operational Forecasting of Oil Spill Drift at Météo-France, Spill Science &Technology
Bulletin, 3, 1–2, 53-64.
■ DHI, 2017. MIKE 21/3 Oil Spill. Oil Spill Model. User guide.
https://manuals.mikepoweredbydhi.help/2017/Coast_and_Sea/MIKE_213_OS.pdf (accessed on March
2022).
■ Duran, Rodrigo, Romeo, L. Whiting, J., Vielma, J., Rose, K., Bunn, A. and Bauer, J., 2018. Simulation
of the 2003 Foss Barge - Point Wells Oil Spill: A Comparison between BLOSOM and GNOME Oil Spill
Models, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 6 (3), 104.
■ French-McCay, D.P., Spaulding, M.L., Crowley, D., Mendelsohn, D., Fontenault, J., Horn, M., 2021.
Validation of Oil Trajectory and Fate Modeling of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Front. Mar. Sci., 23.
■ Genwest Systems & Spiltec EDRC Project, 2012. EDRC Project Final Report.
■ Howlett, E., Jayko, K., Isaji, T., Anid, P., Mocke, G., Smit, F., 2008. Marine forecasting and oil spill
modeling in Dubai and the Gulf región. COPEDEC VII, Dubai, UAE.
■ Hunter, J.R., Craig, P.D., Phillips, H.E., 1993. On the use of random walk models with spatially variable
diffusivity. Journal Comparative Physiology 106, 366-376.
■ IMO (2011). Manual on Oil Pollution, Section IV, Combating Oil Spills , Chapter 7, ‘Chemical
Dispersion’. International Maritime Organization, London.
■ IPIECA, 2015. At sea containment and recovery. Available on: https://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-
practice/at-sea-containment-and-recovery/ (accessed on April 2022)
■ IPIECA, 2015. Contingency planning. Available on: https://ipieca.or/resources (accessed on April 2022)
■ IPIECA-IOGP, 2014. Regulatory approval of dispersant products and authorization for their use.
https://www.ospri.online/site/assets/files/1135/jip-2-dispersants-approvals.pdf (accessed on April 2022)
■ IPIECA-IOGP, 2021. Oil Spill surveillance planning guidance. Available on: https://ipieca.org/resources
(accessed on April 2022)
■ ITOPF, 2012. Use of skimmers in oil pollution response. https://www.ukpandi.com/-
/media/files/imports/13108/articles/8435---tip-5-use-of-skimmers-in-oil-pollution-response.pdf
(accessed on April 2022).
■ TOPF, 2014. Technical Information Papers. Available on: https://www.itopf.org/knowledge-
resources/docuemnts-guides/technical-information-papers/ (accessed on April 2022)
■ Jones, C.E., Dagestad, K.-F., Breivik, Ø., Holt, B., Röhrs, J., Christensen, K.H., Espeseth, M.M.,
Brekke, C., Skrunes, S., 2016. Measurement and modeling of oil slick transport. Journal of
Geophysical Research – Oceans, Volume 121, Issue 10, October 2016, Pages 7759–7775.
■ Javad Rezvandoost, J., Shafieefar, M., Ranjbar, P., 2012. Simulation of oil spill in the Persian Gulf
using OSIS model. Conference: 14th Marine Industrial Conference
■ Keramea, P., Spanoudaki, K., Zodiatis, G., Gikas, G., Sylaios, G., 2021. Oil Spill Modeling: A Critical
Review on Current Trends, Perspectives and Challenges. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 9, 181.
■ Kim, H., Choe, Y., Huh, C., 2019. Estimation of a Mechanical Recovery System’s Oil Recovery
Capacity by Considering Boom Loss. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7(12), 458.
■ Koops W.,1988. A Discussion of Limitations on Dispersant Application. Oil Chem Poll, 139e53.
■ Koops W, Huisman S., 2002. Let the OilWash AshoredIn Case of Heavy Oil Spills, Proceedings of
■ the Third Research and Development Forum on High-Density Oil Spill Response, IMO.
■ Legrand, S., Dagestad, K.-F., Daniel, P., Kapel, M., and Orsi, S., 2002. NOOS-Drift, an innovative
operational transnational multi-model ensemble system to assess ocean drift forecast accuracy., EGU
General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-12653, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-
egu2020-12653
■ Leech, M., Tyler, A., Wiltshire, M., 1993. OSIS: A PC-based oil spill information system. In Proceedings
of the International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, FL, USA, pp. 863–864.
■ Leech, M., Walker, M., Wiltshire, M., Tyler, A., 2012. OSIS: A Windows 3 Oil Spill Information System.
Proceedings of the sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) technical seminar.

Page 86 of 93
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ Legrand, S., V. Dulière. 2012. OSERIT: An oil spill evaluation and response integrated tool, in Book of
Abstracts of the 4th International Conference on the Application of Physical Modelling to Port and
Coastal Protection–Coastlab12. P. Troch, V. Stratigaki, and S. De Roo, eds. Ghent, Belgium:
Department of Civil Engineering, Ghent University, pp. 275–276.
■ Legrand, S., and Duliere, V., 2013. OSERIT: a downstream service dedicated to the Belgian Coast
Guard Agencies. In: H. Dahlin, N. C. Flemming, and S. E. Petersson (Eds.), Sustainable Operational
Oceanography, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on EuroGOOS, 4 - 6 October 2011,
Sopot, Poland, pp 159-167.
■ Li, J. Chen, B. 2020. Global Revisit Interval Analysis of Landsat-8 -9 and Sentinel-2A -2B Data for
Terrestrial Monitoring. Sensors. Vol:20, Issue:22, 1-15.
■ NOAA (2013). Characteristics of Response Strategies: A Guide for Spill Response Planning in Marine
Environments.
https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Characteristics_Response_Strategies.pdf
(accessed on April 2022)
■ Nordam T., Beegle-Krause C.J., Skancke J., Raymond N., Reed M., 2019. Improving oil spill trajectory
modelling in the Arctic. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 140, 65-74.
■ Nordvik A.B., 1999. Time window-of-opportunity strategies for oil spill planning and response. Pure
Appl. Chem., 71(1), 5–16.
■ NUKA, 2015. Oil spill response analysis. Technical Analysis of Oil Spill Response Capabilities and
Limitations for Trans Mountain Expansion Project. https://vancouver.ca/images/web/pipeline/NUKA-oil-
spill-response-capabilities-and-limitations.pdf, (accessed on March 2022).
■ Pollani, A., Triantafyllou, G., Petihakis, G., Nittis, K, Dounas, C. and C. Koutitas, 2001. The Poseidon
Operational Tool for the Prediction of Floating Pollutant Transport. Marine Pollution Bulletin 43(7-12),
175-186.
■ Perivoliotis L., Nittis, K., Charissi, A., 2006. An integrated service for oil spill detection and forecasting
in the marine environment”, European Operational Oceanography: Present and Future, Publication of
the European Communities”, ISBN- 92-894-9788-2, pp 381-387, 2006.
■ Perivoliotis L., Krokos G., Nittis K., Korres G., 2011. The Aegean Sea Marine Security Decision support
System”, doi:10.5194/os-7-671-2011, Ocean Sci., 7, 671–683.
■ Reed, M.; Aamo, O.M.; Daling, P.S., 1995. Quantitative analysis of alternate oil spill response
strategies using OSCAR. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 2, 67–74.
■ Reed, M., Aamo, O.M., Downing, K., 1996. Calibration and testing of IKU's Oil Spill Contingency and
Response (OSCAR) model system. Proceedings of the nineteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
(AMOP) technical seminar. June 12 to 14, 1996 Calgary, Alberta. Volume 1.
■ Reed, M, Daling, P S, Brakstad, O G, Singsaas, I, Faksness, L -G, Hetland, B, and Ekrol, N., 2000.
OSCAR2000 : A multi-component 3-dimensional oil spill contingency and response model. In
Proceedings of the Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical, Seminar, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
663–680.
■ Röhrs, J., Dagestad, K.-F., Asbjørnsen, H., Nordam, T., Skancke, J., Jones, C. E., and Brekke, C.
2018. The effect of vertical mixing on the horizontal drift of oil spills, Ocean Sci., 14, 1581-1601.
■ SINTEF, 2010. Joint industry program on oil spill contingency for Arctic and ice-covered waters,
Available online: https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/project/jip_oil_in_ice/dokumenter/publications/jip-
rep-no-32-summary-report.pdf (accessed on April 2022).
■ Sotillo, M.G., Alvarez Fanjul, E., Castanedo, S., Abascal, A.J., Menendez, J., Emelianov, M., Olivella,
R., García-Ladona, E., Ruiz-Villareal, M., Conde, J., Gómez, M., Conde, P., Gutierrez, A.D., Medina,
R., 2008. Towards an operational system for oil- spill forecast over Spanish waters: Initial
developments and implementation test, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56(4), 686- 703.
■ Spaulding, M.L., Howlett, E., Anderson, E., Jayko, K., 1992.OILMAP—a global approach to spill
modeling. 15th anual Arctic and marine Oil spill program technical seminar, Edmonton, Canada.
■ Spaulding, M. L., Kolluru, V. S., Anderson, E., Howlett, E., 1994. Application of three dimensional oil
spill model (WOSM/ OILMAP) to hindcast the Braer spill. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin, 1(1),
23–35.
■ Spaulding, M.L., Anderson, E., Howlett, E., Mendelsohn, D, Opishinski, T. 1996. Application of
OILMAP and SIMAP to predict the transport and fate of the North Cape Spill, Narragansett, RI.
Proceedings of the nineteenth Arctic and Marine Oil spill Program (AMOP) technical seminar. June 12
to 14, Calgary, Alberta. Volume 1.

Page 87 of 93
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ Spaulding, M.L., 2017. State of the Art Review and Future Directions in Oil Spill Modeling. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 2017, 115, 7–19.
■ Toz, A.C., Koseoglu, B., 2018. Trajectory prediction of oil spill with Pisces 2 around Bay of Izmir,
Turkey. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 126, 125-227.
■ Tuner, I. Harley, M. Almar, R. et al. 2021. Satellite optical imagery in Coastal Engineering. Coastal
Engineering. Vol:167, 103919 pp.
■ Van Dyck R.L., Bruno M.S., 1995. Effect of Waves on Containment Boom Response. IOSC; 2243.
■ Verjovkina, S., Raudsepp, U., Kõuts, T., Vahter, K., 2010. Validation of Seatrack Web using surface
drifters in the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Proper. 2010 IEEE/OES US/EU Baltic International Symposium
(BALTIC).
■ WWF, 2007. Oil Spill Response Challenges in Arctic Waters. Available online:
https://www.wwf.no/assets/attachments/39-nuka_oil_spill_response_report_final_jan_08.pdf (accessed
on March 2022).
■ Zelenke, B., C. O'Connor, C. Barker, C.J. Beegle-Krause, and L. Eclipse (Eds.). 2012. General NOAA
Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME) Technical Documentation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OR&R 40. Seattle, WA: Emergency Response Division, NOAA.
105 pp.
■ Zodiatis, G., Dominicis,M.D., Perivoliotis,L., Radhakrishnan,H., Georgoudis,E., Sotillo,
M.,Lardner,R.W., Krokos,G., Bruciaferri,D., Clementi,E., Guarnieri,A., Ribotti, A., Drago,A., Bourma,E.,
Padorno,E., Daniel,P., Gonzalez,G., Chazot,C., Gouriou, V., Kremer,X., Sofianos, S., Tintore,J.,
Garreau,P., Pinardi,N., Coppini, G., Lecci,R., Pisano,A., Sorgente,R., Fazioli,L., Soloviev,D.,
Stylianou,S., Nikolaidis, A., Panayidou,X., Karaolia,A., Gauci,A., Marcati,A., Caiazzo,L., Mancini, M.,
2016. The Mediterranean decision support system for marine safety dedicated to oil slicks predictions,
Deep Sea Res. Part II: Top. Stud. Oceanogr.133, 4–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.07.014

Page 88 of 93
PUBLICATION TITLE

EMSATOIL
Part 2
Feasibility study for the development of a software tool to
support Member States on oil pollution response
operations at sea
Final Report

Date of publication: 28 July 2023

Report prepared for the European Maritime

Safety Agency under contract number
2021/EMSA/NEG/5/2021 by the Environmental
Hydraulics Institute of Cantabria (IHCantabria)
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Document History

Version Date Changes Prepared Approved

1.0 15/06/2022 IHCantabria
Document updated according with the revision of
2.0 05/08/2022 IHCantabria
version 1.0
Comments provided in previous versions, which
2.1 02/09/2022 IHCantabria
were deleted, have been included
Document updated according to revisions
2.2 18/10/2022 IHCantabria
provided
Final Document updated according to revisions
17/11/2022 IHCantabria
Report provided
Final
28/11/2022 Minor update according to revisions provided IHCantabria
Report
Final
05/12/2022 Minor update according to revisions provided IHCantabria
Report

In December 2021, the Environmental Hydraulics Institute of Cantabria (IHCantabria) was awarded the European
Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) contract 2021/EMSA/NEG/5/2021, call for “A feasibility study for the development
of a software tool to Support Member States on oil pollution response operations at sea”. In the framework of this
contract, IHCantabria will evaluate the feasibility of the development of an enhanced IT tool and will define its
functional and technical requirements. To achieve this objective, the scope of the work is divided into two parts:

■ Part 1: gathering of information to fully understand the functional aspects of the tool and its limitations.
■ Part 2: proposal for options for the definition of the functional, non-functional, and technical requirements of the
tool.

This document presents the work carried out for the definition of the functional, non-functional, and technical
requirements of the tool (Part 2).

Page 2 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Document Summary
EMSA is currently exploring the feasibility to develop an IT tool, hereinafter referred to as system, to support Member
States in their preparedness and operational decision-making process of mobilizing and deploying oil pollution
response resources at sea. The main goal of this project is to gather information on existing tools to evaluate the
feasibility of the development of an enhanced IT system and to define its functional and technical requirements. As
mentioned above, the work is divided into two parts (Part 1 and Part 2). This document is the final report referring to
Part 2 of the deliverables: options for the definition of the functional, non-functional and technical requirements of the
tool.

To achieve these objectives, this document is focused on the following analysis:

■ review of the functional aspects of the tool provided in Part 1;

■ review and assessment on the conceptual and physical architecture of the System;
■ review and assessment on the functional, non-functional, and technical requirements.
■ review and assessment on potential issues

Section 1 englobes the objectives, scope, and structure of the document whilst Section 2 provides the conceptual
and physical architecture of the system, which includes the architecture and all its components. Section 3 provides
the system requirements, including functional, non-functional and technical requirements. Finally, appendix A
provides the software requirements in EMSA’s requirements template and appendix B contains the annexes to the
requirements of the system.

Page 3 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................8
1.1. Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................8
1.2. Scope of the document ...............................................................................................................................8
1.3. Report structure ...........................................................................................................................................8

2. CONCEPTUAL AND PHYSICAL ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................................9

2.1. Architecture .................................................................................................................................................9
2.2. Components (WP) .....................................................................................................................................14

3. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................16

3.1. Functional ..................................................................................................................................................16
3.2. Non-functional ...........................................................................................................................................18
3.3. Technical ...................................................................................................................................................18
3.4. Potential issues .........................................................................................................................................18

Appendix A - EMSA Requirements ..................................................................................................................21

Appendix B – Annexes to EMSA Requirements .............................................................................................23

Annex 1. Required variables ...................................................................................................................................23
Annex 2. Operability and pairing stand-alone equipment rules for Response Simulator .......................................24
Options for pairing stand-alone equipment .............................................................................................................28
Annex 3. Recovery rates and logistics estimations for Response Simulator ..........................................................33
Annex 4. Use cases ................................................................................................................................................42
Annex 5. Mapping between actions and roles ........................................................................................................52

Page 4 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

List of Tables
Table 1 – Work Packages & Subsystems. .................................................................................................................14

Table 2 – Options for operational data integration .....................................................................................................19

Table 3 – Interoperability protocols provided by main data providers ........................................................................20

Page 5 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

List of Figures
Figure 1 – Client-server infrastructure. .........................................................................................................................9

Figure 2 – Subsystems of the proposed architecture. ................................................................................................10

Figure 3 – Layers of the architecture. .........................................................................................................................11

Figure 4 – Proposed architecture. ..............................................................................................................................13

Figure 5 – Relationships between Work Packages. ...................................................................................................15

Figure 6 – General overview of the system. ...............................................................................................................17

Figure 7 – Conceptual design of the Response Simulator and the user interaction to estimate the mechanical recovery
response. ....................................................................................................................................................................17

Figure 8 – Options for the management of operational MetOcean data ....................................................................19

Page 6 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

List of Abbreviations
API Application Programming Interface
CF-conventions Climate and Forecast Metadata Conventions
CMEMS Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service
ECMWF European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
EMODnet European Marine Observation and Data Network
EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency
EODC Earth Observation Data Centre
ETL Extract, Transform & Load
EU European Union
FAIR Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable
GIS Geographic Information System
INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community
OGC Open Geospatial Consortium
NetCDF Network Common Data Form
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RPAS Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems
WCS Web Coverage Service
WMS Web Map Service
WP Work Package

Page 7 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Objectives
EMSA is currently exploring the feasibility to develop an IT system to support Member States in their preparedness
and operational decision-making process of mobilising and deploying oil pollution response resources at sea.

The main goal of the project “Feasibility study for the development of a software tool to Support Member States on
oil pollution response operations at sea”, is to gather information on existing tools, to evaluate the feasibility of the
development of an enhanced system and to define its functional and technical requirements.

This feasibility study discusses to which extent EMSA’s vision and desired functionalities of the tool are technically
feasible. It also proposes technical solutions that EMSA may take into account in the preparation of the requirements
for the procurement of services for the development of the future IT tool.

The information to be gathered and the assessment to be made within this project will enable the concrete definition
of the functional, non-functional and technical requirements of the future IT tool. To achieve these objectives the work
is divided into two parts:

■ Part 1: gathering of information to fully understand the functional aspects of the tool and its limitations.
■ Part 2: proposal for options for the definition of the functional, non-functional and technical requirements of the
tool.

This document is focused on technical aspects of the tool and its limitations (Part 2).

1.2. Scope of the document

This document is the final report on Part 2 of the deliverables. This work has been carried out in the framework of
Work Package 2 and Work Package 3, with the objective of providing an architectural overview and a list of functional,
non-functional and technical requirements for the new tool. To achieve this objective, the following tasks have been
undertaken.

WP 2:

■ Task 2.1. To propose and present a concept architecture for the tool and its systems.
■ Task 2.2. To provide different views of the architecture.
■ Task 2.3. To present the IT work required in work packages in terms of components.

WP 3:

■ Task 3.1. An analysis of the high-level requirements and propose functional, non-functional and technical
requirements according with EMSA’s guidance.
■ Task 3.2. Identify and discuss potential issues.

1.3. Report structure

The document is organized as follows:

■ Section 1 provides an introduction to the project.

■ Section 2 provides a conceptual and physical architecture of the new system.
■ Section 3 presents the system requirements and potential issues.
■ The Appendix A provides the requirements according with EMSA’s guidelines.
■ The Appendix B provides complementary information related to the requirements of system.

Page 8 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

2. CONCEPTUAL AND PHYSICAL ARCHITECTURE

2.1. Architecture
The System proposed is based on a client-server infrastructure, which is composed by two main sections: back-end
and front-end. Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of the workflow between front-end and back-end sections
for any standard Web application.

Figure 1 – Client-server infrastructure.

The front-end includes user interfaces and client’s computer system used for accessing the Geospatial information
through a fit for purpose user interface and interoperability protocols.

On the other hand, the back-end includes servers, data storage system, virtual machines, backup system, processing
system, monitoring system and the required software to provide interoperability protocols to provide access to the
data. Back-end is in charge of gathering, performing analytical processes, data management and provision of
interoperability protocols.

The main objective of the proposed architecture is the collection of environmental data that will be translated into
information to increase the knowledge of end users and facilitate decision-making processes.

It is important to highlight that the infrastructure will be based on an API architecture, which will provide a set of
software interfaces that will expose backend data and application functionality for use in new applications or testing
lab environments for new developments.

The System proposed should be compliant with EMSA’s Enterprise Service Oriented Architecture with the objective
of providing business and data services to other applications and being flexible and agile in order to easily adapt to
change in short time. In this sense, the architecture could be summarized in the management of four types of data
products (modelling, satellite, real time, coast), and processing capabilities, which include the oil spill modelling and
Simulator analysis to obtain the required information and knowledge, which attempts to ensure end users who receive
this visual information gain greater insights and perspectives on the topic (see Figure 2).

Page 9 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 2 – Subsystems of the proposed architecture.

The subsystems proposed are listed and briefly described:

 The MetOcean forecasting subsystem - collect and standardize the access to MetOcean data products in
raster format (forecast data).

 The MetOcean Real time subsystem - collect and standardize the access to real time data from in situ and
remote sensing devices, such as MetOcean buoys or High Frequency Radars respectively.

 The Remote Sensing subsystem – make use of systems such as the Earth Observation Data Centre
(EODC) and SurvSeaNet, which expose OGC services that provide standardize access to remote sensing
products from satellite observations and Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS).

 The Coastal Geospatial subsystem - manage geospatial information such as topographies, bathymetries,
etc.

 The Oil spill model subsystem - estimate the trajectory, dispersion, and weathering of the oil at sea.

 The Oil spill response simulator subsystem - account the efficiency of oil pollution response operations
at sea, highlighting the adequate response resources and equipment to be deployed.

 The Front-end subsystem - provide access to advanced processing techniques coupled with innovative
visualization techniques that will enable a wide array of digital decision support aimed at providing actionable
information to decision-makers.

Operational Systems (such as the modelling, satellite and the real time subsystems) will require robust and reliable
infrastructures that allow them to perform autonomous tasks and workflows periodically. The ability to find out what
is happening on the subsystems at any given time will be crucial to provide a high quality Service. In this sense, the
system should be monitored, checking hundreds of sensors every 10-15 minutes, among them we should highlight
the following sensors: communications, hardware status, space for storage, inputs for models, outputs from models
and ingestion of real-time observations. The information obtained from these sensors will have to be exposed to be
consumed by the current EMSA’s Monitoring system.

Therefore, it is required to have a robust and reliable infrastructure, which will have to be monitored 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, 365 days a year, ensuring business continuity and disaster recovery; with a Recovery Point Objective

Page 10 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

(RPO) and Recovery Time Objective (RTO) in accordance with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the services
provided.

The Architecture proposed is composed by three main layers, see Figure 3: layer 1 is in charge of end user
interactions with the system, the User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX), layer 2 is in charge of the data
management processes, and layer 3 is in charge of the required analysis, numerical simulations and Extract
Transform and Load processes (ETL).

Figure 3 – Layers of the architecture.

Layer 1 – User Interface (UI)

Web technologies must be used to access the system. A Web UI's advantage is that no additional software needs to
be installed on client side and minimal demands are placed on the client platform. Web app will be 100% compatible
with, at least, Microsoft Edge and Mozilla Firefox (latest versions). In order to avoid creating multiple platform
dependent solutions, the app should be based on simple website access, with appropriate changes applied to the UI
to take into account the smaller screen size, reduced bandwidth and touch based controls used by mobile devices.

The user experience (UX) and user interface (UI) are key to provide a friendly tool. End user skills and knowledge
will have to be identified in order to maximize the access and use of the system. In other words, the system will have
to be adapted to best suit end user needs.

Layer 2 – Data Management

Operational decision-making processes require diverse spatial and temporal scale approaches in order to represent
its multiple phenomena.

Software development in environmental sciences relays on the way in which environmental data is managed,
inhibiting or enabling future analysis. Rather than having silos of information for each specific functionality, the Data
Management approach should be based on a centralised data management infrastructure that can be accessible
through standard interoperability protocols by other modules (e.g. user interfaces or processing modules). In this
sense, the architecture proposed is based on the design and implementation of Application Programming Interfaces
(APIs), which will act as a broker between the data (modelling, real time, satellite, etc.) and the different subsystems:
oil spill trajectory, simulator and front-end.

Page 11 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

The proposed APIs for data management are listed and briefly described:

■ API MetOcean – provides methods to access MetOcean products, forecasting and real time observations.

■ API Remote sensing– provides methods to access remote sensing data products from satellite observations and
RPAS.

■ API Coastal Geospatial – provides methods to access coastal geospatial data.

■ API Emergency - provides methods to access information managed in the Emergency Data Base (emergency
properties, simulations, spill polygons...)

■ API Oil DB - provides methods to access information managed in the Oil Data Base (oil characteristics)

■ API Resources & Equipment - provides methods to access information managed in the Resource & Equipment
Data Base

Layer 3 – Processing

The processing layer will be in charge on all the functionalities that require analysis on the fly and under demand.
Four main functionalities are included in the processing layer:

1) Oil spill model - the oil spill model selected will have to be integrated in the system to provide its numerical
modelling capabilities.

2) Response simulator model - the response simulator model will have to be integrated in the system to provide
its numerical response simulator capabilities.

3) Extract, Transform and Load processes - ETLs processes will have to be integrated in the system to
assimilate data from:

a. different metocean data providers such as Copernicus and NOAA,

b. inputs required for the oil spill model selected for integration and its outputs,

c. different results from other externally run oil spill models.

4) Log generator - engine to monitor the status of the system autonomously (24x7). The Log generator will
create and expose the information for the EMSA’s monitoring system.

Access to the processing functionalities should be provided by APIs, ensuring agnostic access to invoke the models
or access their results. The proposed APIs for processing are listed and briefly described:

 API Oil spill – provides methods to invoke the oil spill model dynamically with its range of settings.

 API Simulator – provides methods to invoke the simulator dynamically with its range of settings.

 API Monitor – provides methods for accessing granular data on the state of the system.

Figure 4 summarizes the main components of each of the layers and provides a draft architecture proposal.

Page 12 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 4 – Proposed architecture.

Therefore, interoperability will facilitate the creation of an ecosystem of technical users (developers) who can
provide innovative solutions that will be able to be easily integrated in the future. The proposed architecture could be
used as an “IT Lab” to design and test new models, functions and algorithms making use of the exposed APIs
(Modelling, Real Time, Satellite, oil spill and simulator, etc.).

Page 13 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

2.2. Components (WP)

The IT work required for the design, development and implementation of the System is listed as subsystems
corresponding with Work Packages (WP), see Table 1 .

Table 1 – Work Packages & Subsystems.

WP Priority Subsystem Subtasks

Subsystem in charge of the management of MetOcean forecasting products:

MetOcean (1) collect and standardize modelling MetOcean products from different data
WP1 5
forecasting providers (Copernicus, NOAA, etc.) or end users,
(2) provide interoperability access to MetOcean products collected.

Subsystem in charge of the management of Emergencies:

Emergency
WP2 5 (1) set up emergencies
management
(2) manage emergency properties and spill polygons

Subsystem in charge of:

Oil Spill modelling service, which includes:
(1) set up of the model,
Oil spill (2) computing capacity,
WP3 5
model (3) interoperability to run the model and access the modelling results.
Oil Spill characteristics database service, which includes:
(1) database design,
(2) interoperability for data management

Subsystem in charge of highlighting the adequate response resources and equipment

to be deployed, which includes:
Oil pollution Response Simulator service, which includes:
Oil spill (1) Algorithms for the analysis,
WP4 5 response (2) computing capacity,
simulator (3) Interoperability to run the algorithms and access their results.
Response resources and equipment database service, which include:
(4) database design,
(5) Interoperability for data management.

Subsystem in charge of MetOcean real time observations:

MetOcean
WP5 2 (1) collect and standardize real time in situ data and
real time
(2) provide interoperability access to real time MetOcean products.

Subsystem in charge of:

Remote (1) database design with the products of data providers (EODC and SurvSeaNet)
WP6 1
sensing and their OGC services.
(2) access remote sensing data products from satellite observations and RPAS.

Coastal Coastal Geospatial Subsystem in charge of:

WP7 3
Geospatial (1) centralize and manage coastal data (bathymetries, topography, etc.).

Subsystem in charge of facilitating user interaction with the System:

(1) User Interface and User Experience design and development according with
WP8 4 Front-end end user needs,
(2) access management and role/privileges integrated with EMSA’s authorization
services.

The relationships among the Work Packages proposed are shown in Figure 5: WP 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 are devoted to
data collection and data management. Analysis and some data management (oil characteristics and response
equipment) will be undertaken in WP3 and WP4. Finally, WP 8 requires outputs from all the WP. WP5 and 6 are not
critical WP for the design and development of the proposed system.

Page 14 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

In terms of interactions between WP, results from WP 1, 2 and 7 are fundamental to perform the required analysis
by WP3 and WP4. Results from the analysis and the different data products will be accessible through the Web
application developed under WP8.

Figure 5 – Relationships between Work Packages.

Page 15 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

3. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
This section describes high-level requirements and propose functional, non-functional and technical requirements.
Based on the software specification phase, the System Architecture has also been designed and described, providing
the definition of the architecture, components and modules to satisfy the specifications stated according with EMSA’s
guidance.
3.1. Functional
To fulfil EMSA’s requirements, it will be necessary to design and develop an IT system with the following functional
specifications, see Figure 6:

■ To run the Oil Spill Model (OSM) and the Response Simulator (RS). The system should be able:
− To run oil spill simulations to predict the trajectory, dispersion, and weathering of oil spills at sea considering
the met ocean conditions at the spill site. The initial oil spill location will be provided from a specific location
or polygons obtained, e.g., from aerial observations, satellite images, or RPAS images.
− To run several independent oil spills simulations to take into account the division of the oil spill into several
slicks.
− To run the response simulator to estimate the amount of oil removed, dispersed, or burned from the sea
surface by the deployment of oil pollution response equipment and resources. The output of the 3D oil spill
model will serve as the basis for the simulator.
− It should be flexible to import data from third-party oil spill models and to run the response simulator with this
information.

■ Management and visualization of external databases: earth observation, MetOcean forecasting, MetOcean real
time observations and coastal geospatial information. The system should be able to manage and visualize GIS
data:
− Extract, transform, load, manage and visualize raster data, including scientific formats with n dimensions
(such as NetCDFs).
− Extract, transform, load, manage and visualize vector data.

■ Management and visualization of the system databases:

− It shall integrate a database of oils that are frequently transiting European waters. The database shall gather
the physical and chemical properties of the oils required for the oil spill model.
− It shall integrate a database of European oil pollution resources. In addition, it should be possible the
integration of other regional or local sources of environmental data from EU Member States.
− Interoperability to both data bases must be guarantee, including access and edition related with user
privileges

■ Management, export, and visualization of the simulation results:

− OSM: transport and dispersion of the oil spill, as well as, the temporal evolution of the weathering processes.
− RS: the amount of oil removed/dispersed/burned, the Gantt chart for the schedule of the operations and the
total cost for a set response strategy.

Page 16 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 6 – General overview of the system.

The following lines describe the functionality of the Response Simulator. The user interaction with the system
interface will facilitate the loading of the results of an oil spill simulation (including the evolution of the centre of mass
of the spill and the evolution of the main properties of the oil substance: density, viscosity, thickness…) into the
system. Moreover, the user will have to select the met ocean databases desired to take into account during the
simulation of the response. Finally, the user will have to assign the response assets based on compatible resources
and equipment to be used during the recovery simulation.

The system will provide a default working day (e.g. 9h to 17h) to allow scheduled operations, which will be the base
for the calculations carried out for the total N days of the simulation. This working day definition would be changed
optionally by the user to satisfy the requirements of the different Member States and actors involved in the operations.

Figure 7 – Conceptual design of the Response Simulator and the user interaction to estimate the mechanical recovery
response.

Page 17 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

3.2. Non-functional
The following list provides a set of non-functional requirements for the design and development of the proposed
system:

■ The Scalability - A scalable architecture is an architecture that can scale up to meet increased workloads. In this
case, scalability of the software will be achieved through the design and implementation of Web Services. This
approach will require to divide services into separate modules which are loosely coupled together,
communicating with each other through light-weight mechanisms (for example APIs).

■ Open Source - Open source should be adopted as mandatory to guarantee maintenance without additional costs
and a potential evolution of the System as an open lab. The System will be based on the current open source
geospatial state of the art, avoiding reinventing the wheel and harnessing the full potential of mature open source
geospatial technologies. The advantages of opting for open source are well known, highlighting the absence of
no vendor lock-in and lower software costs on licencing and maintenance.

3.3. Technical
The following list provides a set of technical requirements for the design and development of the proposed system:

■ Interoperability - The system should be based on subsystems that will guarantee a smooth workflow based on
Interoperability protocols. Interoperability will ensure the provision of a scalable System.

■ The use of application programming interfaces (API) to develop a modular and interoperable system should be
granted to access main databases and services.

■ The use of OGC and INSPIRE standards should be granted in the data workflow (e.g., access to nautical charts,
vessel detection, and traffic density maps).

■ Compatible with Nagios monitoring system – The system will expose sensors to monitor the processes and to
facilitate the information to a Nagios monitoring system.

■ Progressive web app standards will be followed to develop a system compliant with mobile devices.

3.4. Potential issues

One of the main concerns related to the design and development of the proposed system is the management of such
a large amount of available operational data (modelling, in situ and satellite imagery). Three options have been
considered and analysed to tackle this important issue:

■ Option 1 – Design and develop a System that integrates operationally all the required data (modelling, in situ
and satellite imagery) and provide interoperability access to all the integrated data. The aspects to take into
consideration are listed:
 Software & hardware to host and manage the metocean data providing OGC services (WMS, WCS)
 Monitor the operational service: service status and available data on time and formats.

■ Option 2 – Design and develop a System that access and transform operationally all the required data
(modelling, in situ and satellite imagery) for the oil spill model. The aspects to take into consideration are listed:
 Software to access and transform the data under demand to be used by the oil spill model.
 Monitor the operational service: service status and available data on time and formats.

■ Option 3 – Design and develop a System that integrates under demand the required data (modelling, in situ and
satellite imagery) and provide interoperability access to all the integrated data for the area of work selected by
the user. The aspects to take into consideration are listed:

Page 18 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

 Software & hardware to host and manage the metocean data providing OGC services (WMS, WCS)
 Monitor the operational service: service status and available data on time and formats.

Figure 8 – Options for the management of operational MetOcean data

Option 2 accesses the data through interoperability protocols (e.g., OpenDAP), which means that the system does
not download the data and is able to run the oil spill model. This option would be preferred if data providers (e.g.,
Copernicus, NOAA, ECMWF, etc.) provided OGC interoperability protocols such as WMS, WCS, and WFS to allow
visualization of weather and ocean data without their necessary download. On the other hand, option 1 would
download all MetOcean products on a regional scale in Europe to integrate OGC services into the Data Management
and Visualization System. Finally, option 3 is the same concept as option 1 and 2, but with a defined work area,
which will allow initiating the download of those selected products that cannot be accessed through OGC
interoperability protocols, instead of autonomously and systematically downloading all products periodically.

Table 2 shows advantages and disadvantages for each of the options.

Table 2 – Options for operational data integration

Option1 Option 2 Option 3

Alias Operational integration Access by demand Integration by demand

Full control and management

of all available data (modelling, The ETL will be specially
in situ and satellite), which designed for the oil spill model. Full control and management of all
provides instant access to the The system will require less available data (modelling, in situ and
Advantage
data and all capabilities for computational capacity and satellite) for the area of interest. OGC
data mining and visualization. therefore the transformation protocols will facilitate access to the data.
OGC protocols will facilitate speed will be faster.
access to the data

The amount of data will be very Without OGC services, other The oil spill model and other subsystems
large. The service will have to subsystems (e.g. the front end) that rely on metocean data will not be
Disadvantage
be scaled according with the will not be able to access the available for immediate use. First, the
space requirements data and use it for other user will have to set up “the area of work”,

Page 19 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Option1 Option 2 Option 3

purposes, such as visualizing wait for the download process and then all
winds, currents, waves, etc. the necessary data will be available to
make use of all system functionalities.

Therefore, after analysing all the interoperability protocols provided by the main data providers, see Table 3, we
conclude that the best option for the proposed System is option 3. This option will avoid to replicate a large data
repository of metocean data and will provide full potential capabilities through the implementation of OGC services
such as Web Map Service and Web Coverage Service. However, it should be noted that data providers are currently
working to provide the OGC interoperability protocols required in their services, which would facilitate the
implementation of Option 2.

Table 3 – Interoperability protocols provided by main data providers

Protocols provided Protocols not provided

OpenDap
MotuClient
Copernicus Marine FTP
Web Coverage Service (WCS)
Service (CMEMS) DGF
Web Map Service (WMS)
ERDAP

OpenDAP
FTP Web Map Service (WMS)
NOAA
Https Web Coverage Service (WCS)
Grib-filter

FTP
Web Map Service (WMS)
ECMWF AmazonS3
Web Coverage Service (WCS)
Azure

Page 20 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Appendix A - EMSA Requirements

The complete EMSA Requirements will be provided in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet file. In Table 4 the summary of
the complete requirements list is shown. At the end of this report the complete requirements list.

Table 4 - Summary of the system requirements

Nº Requirement title
UC.1 Use case: User roles and main functionalities of the service
UC.2 Use case: Perform OSM simulation
UC.3 Use case: Perform RS Simulation
UC.4 Use case: perform simulation re-start
UC.5 Use case: digitalize oil spill polygons
1 General view, modules, and sections
2 Main functionalities of the system
3 General structure of the databases
4 Login, authentication, and authorization of users
5 User roles
6 Mapping between roles and actions
7 Visualize geospatial information
8 Web map and geospatial functionalities
9 Drawing Oil spill polygon
10 Uploading Oil spill polygon
11 Visualize Metocean, satellite, and aerial images
12 Upload aerial images
13 Emergency section
14 Define emergency domain
15 Search for metocean and satellite data
16 OSM Module
17 Oil spill modelling functionality
18 Third-party OSM outputs upload functionality
19 ETLs for third-party OSM outputs
20 Metocean data access for OSM
21 Restart from existing OSM simulation
22 RS module
23 RS methodology
24 RS - Window opportunity and response equipment workflow
25 RS – Window Opportunity
26 RS – Assignment of resources
27 RS – Check feasibility
28 RS – Force working in not feasible days
29 RS – Schedule configuration and trigger calculation
30 RS – Schedule recovery operations
31 RS – Recovery rates
32 RS – Summary
33 Restart from RS simulation
34 List of metocean and satellite data
35 ETLs metocean data
36 Metocean Service from ETLs products
37 Time for metocean data download
38 Emergency database section
39 Emergency database service
40 Oil database section
41 Oil database service
42 Resource & equipment database section
43 Resource & equipment database service

Page 21 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Nº Requirement title
44 Monitor
45 Progressive Web app
46 Mobile device functionalities

Page 22 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Appendix B – Annexes to EMSA Requirements

Annex 1. Required variables
A) Required variables to import an external Oil Spill Model results

Not all the oil spill models save, as result, the same variables, some of them include derived or slightly different
variables that can be calculated in many cases through simple physical equations. This specific task should be
reviewed when the list of the desired compatible external models will be defined.

Generally, there are two different scopes regarding the results obtained by oil spill modelling, results at particle
scale and results at spill scale. For the use of the app, the variables needed are divided into two groups: particle
tracking and weathering.

■ Variables that define the location of the particles that represent the oil spill, and its related geometrical
properties:
− Particle tracking: position of each particle (coordinates).
− Center of mass: derived from the particle tracking, not all models include this variable.
− Area of the spill: derived from the particle tracking, not all models include this variable.

■ Variables that define the results of the weathering processes suffered by the substance, and its related
physicochemical properties. Some models use a particle scale for some variables, the app requires a spill
scale value that can be in any case easily derived from the particle scale:
− Mass on the surface: total oil mass on the surface.
− Mass evaporated: total oil mass evaporated to the atmosphere.
− Mas dispersed: total mass dispersed in the water column.
− Mass beached: total mass beached, the mass that already has reached the coast.
− Mass of the emulsified product: the total mass of the emulsion (oil mousse) that considers the water-in-oil
mixture and which can be derived from oil mass and the percentage of water content.
− Viscosity: the spatial mean viscosity of the spill.
− Density: the spatial mean density of the spill.
− Thickness: the spatial mean thickness of the oil spill.

B) Required variables to be defined in the Oil database

Not all the oil spill models use, as input, the same oil properties. Thus, this specific task should be reviewed during
the integration of the OSM module in the app to ensure that all the variables needed regarding the oil properties
are defined in this database. The most common variables to be included in the database are the following:

− Name
− Product type (crude/refined)
− Density @ reference temperature
− Viscosity @ reference temperature
− Kinematic or/and Dynamic viscosity @ reference temperature
− API
− Pour point
− Flash point
− Maximum water content of the emulsion

Page 23 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Annex 2. Operability and pairing stand-alone equipment rules for Response

Simulator
A) Operability rules
This information was extracted from the document “EMSATOIL Part1 - Feasibility study for the development of
a software tool to support Member States on oil pollution response operations at sea (Version 3.1)” section
“4.5 – Operability assessment and window of opportunity” for further information please consult the complete
document.

Operability assessment and window of opportunity

The objective of this section is: i) to analyze the aspects that influence the operability of the response operation and
ii) to identify and assess the possibility of having a warning message displayed to the user on the window of
opportunity for oil spill response at sea considering the weather conditions and the characteristics of the weathered
oil. These aspects are addressed in step 1 of the proposed methodology.

Response operations are strongly impacted by met ocean conditions as any operation at sea. The operability
assessment provides the met ocean conditions in which these specific operations can be carried out to ensure the
safety and performance of the personnel and the equipment. Operability assessment has been divided into two
main sections: 1) general operability related to general factors such as visibility, met ocean or environmental
temperature; and 2) operability limits for each response technique based on weather conditions and the
characteristics of the weather oil.

Moreover, the window of opportunity defines the time periods for effective utilization of marine oil spill response
technologies and methodologies in clean-up operations (Norvidvik, 1999) and mainly depends on the changes in
the physical and chemical properties of the oil (oil weathering) and the weather conditions. The window of
opportunity will be estimated based on the operability limits established for the response operations techniques as
part of the operability assessment.

General operability
This section presents the main factor affecting the general operability of the response operation. The most
important variables constraining the operability of the response are the met ocean conditions that ensure the safety
of the personnel and the safety of the navigation. In Table 5, the collection of variables and operability limits
regarding navigation and personnel safety are shown. Wind velocity for small and large VOO as well as for OSRV
has been established based on RC. The general value of the wave height for all vessels has been considered
taking into account the operability limits for booms and assuming that vessels do not operate if the equipment
cannot be deployed. Temperature and visibility values have been obtained from the Circumpolar oil spill response
viability analysis technical report (EPPR, 2017). It is important to highlight that Table 5 presents general values that
can vary for specific types of vessels. Furthermore, staff safety is of paramount importance. Ultimately, these
operational limits must be set by the corresponding Maritime Authority.

Table 5 - General operability topics, variables, and limits.

Topic Variable Operability limit

Navigation (Small VOO) Wind velocity < 5 m/s
Navigation (Large VOO) Wind velocity < 10.8 m/s
Navigation (OSRV) Wind velocity < 10.8 m/s
Navigation (All vessels) Wave Height <3m
Personnel safety Temperature > -18 ºC
Navigation (All vessels) Visibility 200 – 900 m

Operability assessment will be evaluated for each day of simulation. In order to be flexible with the usual
uncertainties and outliers of any forecast, it is proposed to use a statistical value as representative of the working

Page 24 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

day, e.g. 80% percentile, which allows exceeding the limit value defined for each variable during a maximum of
20% of the working day is proposed. The user will be allowed to modify this percentile value to create a more
flexible or restrictive assessment of the operability.

Operability for each response type

Differences between each type of response and the equipment and operations involved determine the
accomplishment of some specific limits to ensure the safety and success of the works. To enhance the clarity of the
document these specific operability limits have been grouped by response type as follows:

■ In situ burning

The application of this response in the EU has to be approved by the competent authority, after the authentication
of several strict requirements related to minimum distances from populated areas or special protection areas and
the safety of the operators.

Once this type of response is authorized, the time window for ignition and sustained burning will vary, depending
on environmental conditions, physical properties, and chemical composition of the spilled oil. Once the initially
hazardous and high fire risk situation has passed, the time window of opportunity for the use of in situ burning as
an oil spill response opens, and in situ burning will become a feasible response. The time window of opportunity for
the use of in situ burning will eventually close when the slick becomes impossible to ignite due to the oil layer
thickness drops below a critical minimum, the oil has lost a substantial proportion of its more volatile and flammable
components by evaporation, and when the oil has incorporated water to form an emulsion.

For a successful in-situ burn the layer of oil on the sea surface needs to be at least 2-3 mm thick to counter the
cooling effect of the wind and sea and maintain a fuel source for the fire (API, 2015,
https://www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/documents-guides/response-techniques/in-situ-burning/). The ignition
and sustained burning of weathered oil using conventional ignition technology is restricted by approximately 25%
evaporation and or a 25% water content (API 2015) and wind velocity and wave height (Fingas, 2011; API 2015).

Table 6 shows the specific variables and operability limits for this response based on API (2015).

Table 6 - Specific variables and operability limits related to In situ burning response (API, 2015).

Topic Variable Operability limit

Oil/Emulsion characteristics Evaporation < 25%
Thickness > 2 to 3 mm thick (2 to 3 times
Oil/Emulsion characteristics thicker for highly
weathered/emulsified oil).
< 25% (can vary
Oil/Emulsion characteristics Emulsification
for different types of oil).
Wind velocity < 9.2 m/s for ignition; sustained
Ignition and correct burning burning possible with higher wind
conditions.
Wave height < 3 m swells or 1 m wind waves
Ignition and correct burning (may be higher with fresh and un-
emulsified oil

■ Dispersant application

This technique has also very restricted use in the EU and not all Members States allow its use. Dispersants are
applied from aircraft or vessels, through dispersant applications systems.

As oil weathers at sea, its viscosity increases until it is no longer dispersible. Emulsification and evaporation
processes increase oil viscosity and decrease its dispersibility. The time during which oil remains dispersible is

Page 25 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

called “the window of opportunity for dispersion.” It varies according to the type of oil and the environmental
conditions. This period is mainly dependent on the oil viscosity (see Table 6).

A viscosity of 10,000 cSt is often used as an indication of oil’s dispersibility (IMO, 2011; EMSA, 2009). Oils with
viscosity (at seawater temperature) of up to 10,000 cSt are considered to be potentially dispersible, though
dispersion of oils with viscosities above 20,000 cSt is reported (IPIECA-IOGP, 2014).

Table 7 - Specific variables and operability limits related to dispersant application response.

Topic Variable Operability limit

General met ocean conditions Wind velocity Limits of the aircraft or vessel
Oil/Emulsion characteristics Viscosity <10.000 – 20.000 cSt

■ Mechanical Recovery

This type of response is by far the most utilized by all the Member States to face large oil spill emergencies. The
operability limits of this response can be divided into two main operations: boom deployment and skimmer
operability.

The deployment and use of the booms to drag oil and facilitate the skimming actions require mainly good weather
conditions. Table 8 presents the met ocean operability limits regarding wave height, wind, and current velocities to
ensure the correct deployment and use of the booms. Note that these values are general values that may vary for
specific booms, configuration deployment, or skimmer types.

Several documents have been consulted to determine the ratio in which the waves produce failure in booms. Oil spill
response field manual from ExxonMobil (2014) establishes that splash over failure may occur in choppy water when
wave height (H) is greater than boom freeboard and the wavelength/height (L/H) ratio is less than 10:1, where
height/H is an indirect measurement of the roughness of the sea. Fingas (2011) referred to Van Dyck and Bruno
(1995), where is indicated that a wavelength/height ratio is not a limiting parameter when is 12:1 or greater. NOAA
(2012) states that for mechanical recovery, effectiveness drops significantly because of entrainment and/or splash-
over as short-period waves develop beyond 2–3 ft (0.6–0.9 m) in height. Koops and Huisman (2002) give a priori
limits of Beaufort 6 (10 – 14 m/s) for skimmers and another mechanical recovery. Koops (1988) gives the limit of
skimmers as 1.5 m wave heights and notes that swell has no effect on the capability to mechanically recover.

Current velocity limit values are the other main factor related to droplet entrainment and drainage failures.
Entrainment failure generally occurs at current velocities between 0.7 and 1.0 kts (0.4-0.5 m/s) (Fingas, 2011; ITOPF,
2012; ExxonMobil, 2014).

Lastly, the ability to contain and recover oil decreases rapidly as the slick thickness becomes less than a thousandth
of an inch or 0.00254 mm (NOAA 2012, ROC technical manual)

Oil viscosity is another factor to take into account in skimmer operability. Although the operability as a function of the
viscosity will depend on the type of skimmer, there are several skimmers prepared to work in a huge range of
viscosities regardless of the skimmer type. All skimmers work in optimal conditions in medium viscosities. However,
a very high viscosity could produce problems or inoperability. Based on international standard ISO 21072:2020
Performance testing of oil skimmer, the ratios to light/medium viscosity are up to 50.000 cP and high viscosity oil
above 50.000 cP and up to 1.000.000 cP, so this could be the upper limit skimmer operability.

Table 8 - Specific variables and operability limits related to mechanical recovery response.

Topic Variable Operability limit

General met ocean conditions
Wave height < 1 – 1.5 m
(booms and skimmers)

Page 26 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Topic Variable Operability limit

General met ocean conditions
Wavelength/wave height ratio <10:1 or 12:1
(booms and skimmers)
General met ocean conditions
Wind velocity < 10 – 14 m/s
(booms and skimmers)
General met ocean conditions < 0.5 m/s
Current velocity
(booms and skimmers)
Oil/Emulsion characteristics Thickness > 0.00254 mm
High-viscosity and depending on
Oil/ Emulsion characteristics Viscosity the skimmer (not clear reference
found)

Window of opportunity
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the window of opportunity defines the time periods for effective
utilization of marine oil spill response technologies, which depends on the oil weathering and the weather
conditions.

The window of opportunity will be established by taking into account:

i) the hourly met ocean forecasts provided by the European forecasting systems (e.g. Copernicus Marine
Service) described in Section ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.,
ii) the temporal evolution of the oil weathering provided by oil spill numerical models, and
iii) the operability limits previously established for each response technique.

Based on this information, the system will provide the window of opportunity in a user-friendly way, to support the
response authorities to decide and select on which assets to mobilise.To obtain a warning message about the
window of opportunity for offshore oil spill response, four subsystems must work in a coordinated manner:

■ (1) back-end subsystem that provides the oil characteristics,

■ (2) back-end subsystem that provides the forecast of the met ocean conditions,
■ (3) back-end subsystem that evaluates the window of opportunity making use of the previous subsystems
and
■ (4) front-end subsystem that is designed to provide a user experience in line with the information required
for the end-users. The use of traffic lights across a forecasting timeline is a commonly used solution
implemented for operation and maintenance systems. To illustrate this kind of graph, Figure 9 shows an
example of an operability assessment in an oil terminal to support the end-user about the operability
conditions for oil load and unload operations.

Page 27 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 9 - Example of operability assessment for loading/unloading operations in oil terminals.

End users will interact with the front-end to invoke the window opportunity analysis and obtain the final evaluation
(i.e. a warning message).

B) Pairing stand-alone rules

This information was extracted from the document “EMSATOIL Part1 - Feasibility study for the development of
a software tool to support the Member States on oil pollution response operations at sea (Version 3.1)”,
section “4.4 – Options for pairing stand-alone equipment” for further information please consult the complete
document.

Options for pairing stand-alone equipment

The objective of this section is to identify and assess options for pairing stand-alone equipment (identified in the
database of response assets) with adequate vessels. This issue is addressed in Step 0 of the proposed methodology.

Definition of resource properties

First of all, the main properties of vessels, stand-alone equipment, and the different configurations for each response
technique have to be established and, as far as possible, to be incorporated into the databases of response assets.

On one hand, for marine operations vessels can be classified into two groups:

■ Specialized Oil Spill Recovery Vessel (OSRV) is a dedicated vessel always equipped with oil spill response
equipment to carry out mechanical recovery, in situ burning, or dispersant application autonomously. These
vessels are fully equipped and do not require to be complemented with other assets.
■ Vessel of Opportunity (VOO) is a non-dedicated vessel for oil response operations. These vessels are
dedicated to different activities (normally sea rescue activities, research, fishing vessels, bulk tank…) to
respond during major oil spills so during the emergency they can be equipped with compatible stand-alone
equipment for realizing mechanical recovery (booms and skimmers), in situ burning (fire booms and ignitor), or
dispersant application (dispersant application system, DAS). These vessels can be very different types and the
jobs VOO may be assigned will depend on the oil spill response and their capacities.

The following information would be required to have an approach to their capabilities to be paired with the equipment:

■ Deck space (m2)

Page 28 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

■ Available deck space to storage (m2)

■ Loading capacity (tons)
■ Lifting appliances/ crane (tons)
■ Tow or Deploy capabilities
■ Towing capacity (tons)
■ Storage capacity (m3)
■ Other capabilities (specific equipment, crew number...)

On the other hand, stand-alone equipment refers to the necessary assets to carry out the different response options
(booms, fire booms, combined equipment, trawl-nets, skimmers, dispersants, and dispersant application systems).
Each piece of equipment has its basic properties and requirements to be loaded and deployed, such as:

■ Storage space needed (i.e. 20ft container: 38,54 m2)

■ Clear space to operate (i.e. 3-4 meters in front of the container doors)
■ Open gunwale to deploy/recover (i.e. yes/no)
■ Lifting appliances/ crane to deploy/recover. (yes/no)
■ Weigh (tonnes)
■ Tow Speed (m/s)
■ Number of vessels to tow and deploy
■ Crew needed to deploy and control.
■ Total meters available and sections of 250 m. (to containment booms)

This information shall be included in the database of the resource properties. These data are normally available in
the equipment’s data sheet or can be facilitated by owners.

Regarding the configuration for each response technique, Table 9 shows an overview of the potential configurations
of the equipment in each specific case.

Table 9 - Potential configuration of the equipment for each response technique.

Mechanical recovery Dispersant In Situ burning

■ Only Booms ■ Dispersant ■ Fire boom + ignition kit
■ Booms + Skimmer ■ Dispersant
■ Booms + Skimmer + Storage application
■ Combined equipment: containment system
booms & skimmer (i.e.

■ Combined equipment + Storage

■ Trawl nets: containment & storage
■ Only Storage

Pairing stand-alone equipment with vessels

Once defined the aforementioned properties, the stand-alone pairing equipment with adequate VOO can be
established taking into account the following aspects:

■ Operation Mode of the VOO

During the operations at sea, the vessel adopts a role or mode based on the activity that is carried out (tow mode or
deploy mode) and depending on its characteristics.

As previously mentioned, the database of resource properties shall include the different capabilities of each vessel.
If this information is not available, based on the rules defined in the RC, mode operation could be approached with
the deck space (K). This value can be used to define whether the vessel can tow or tow and deploy equipment. Deck
space is calculated with VOO length (L) multiplied by its breadth (B), deck space equation reads as follows:

Page 29 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

𝐾 𝑚 𝐿 𝑚 𝐵 𝑚 (9)
Table 10 - Tow and deploy capabilities of VOO based on its deck space.

Deck space (K) Allowed capabilities

K < 200 Tow (only)
K > 200 Tow and deploy

The operation mode of the VOO will define what kind of equipment can be paired with:

− If a VOO just can tow, just equipment for towing can be selected (storage, booms, or fire booms). Based on
RC assumptions, when a VOO is in Tow Mode, cannot afford Dispersant response.
− If a VOO can tow and deploy, the selection of equipment is wider (skimmer, fire booms, booms, combined
equipment, storage, dispersant, or a dispersant application system).

The selection of the equipment also depends on the deck available area. As established in RC, it has to be into
account that from the total dimensions of the vessel, 15% of the deck must be available for storing and operating the
equipment. If this 15% is not available, the VOO just is disposed to tow operation without charging equipment.

■ Selection of the equipment for the VOO

Two options are proposed for the selection of the equipment:

− Option 1: based on the information previously mentioned. This option provides a more realistic
approximation since it is based on the properties of the vessels and the size of the stand-alone equipment.
This option requires the elaboration of a complete database of resources and equipment properties with all
the information required.
− Option 2: based on the rules of the Response Calculator, which establishes the classification of all the
stand-alone equipment as Large or Small. This option requires less information about the properties of the
resources.

OPTION 1

A vessel just can deploy one type of response at once, although different types of responses are on board. For proper
distribution of the equipment to deploy a complete response, the following general criteria based on the resource
properties are proposed:

− For a chosen VOO the system will provide only that equipment that by its size (storage space + operation
space needed) can fit with the available deck space, does not exceed the maximum weight, or meet the
special needs required (as a crane).
− When a complete response is loaded in a VOO (i.e. boom + skimmer + storage), but there is still available
space, another response could be added (i.e. add dispersant + DAS) if possible.
− Some VOO already has some type of built-in response (that should be indicated in the resource
properties). To these VOO, new assets can be added, to complete the response already integrated (i.e. a
VOO with dispersant application system can be complemented with dispersants) or to create another
response. The storage available indicated in the resource properties of these VOO must be the real one,
with those assets integrated.

Thus, for each type of response a piece of equipment can be selected until a full response is complete (i.e. if the user
selects a boom, the rest of the booms are cancelled so he can complete the response with skimmer + storage). The
response is complete when:

− The user determines that the response is complete.

− The maximum weight or the maximum storage space available of VOO is overcome. In this case, a second
vessel should be activated to be completed with the remaining necessary equipment.

Page 30 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

To conclude, the user has to be able to select the characteristics in a sequence response +vessel + equipment
(available) (see Table 11):

− Selection of the response technique (based on the operability assessment and the window of opportunity
or other criteria considered by the user).
− Selection of vessels (OSRV or VOO) from each sub-group list (sorted by mobilization time). Vessel > Type
> Sorted list of vessels. In the case of dispersant response, aircrafts available too.
− Operation Mode: Tow or Deploy (and tow), according to the information selected in previous steps.
− Specific response equipment from desired response types. Specific response > Type > List of equipment.
The system will provide a list of equipment according to the information selected in previous steps, i.e.
compatible with the response technique, the location of the selected vessels, the operation mode, and the
characteristics of the vessel. As mentioned, the system will provide the list of equipment that can fit with the
available deck space, does not exceed the maximum weight, or meet the special needs required (as a
crane). Note that the available deck space will be recalculated taking into account the integration of each
asset.

Table 11 - Sequence of the selection of the equipment.

Selection sequence Main category Type

Mechanical recovery
Response selection Response types Dispersant
In situ burning
OSVR
Vessels
Vessel VOO
Aircraft (just to Dispersant response) Aircrafts

Tow (for mechanical recovery and In

Operation Mode of the situ burning)
VOO (based on the Operation Mode
capabilities of the Deploy (and Tow) (for Mechanical
VOO) recovery, In situ burning, and
Dispersant)

Booms

Skimmer
Mechanical recovery equipment
Specific equipment Combined equipment
available based on the
Storage
vessel characteristics
(i.e. required space, Trawl nets
available crane,…)
Dispersant application equipment Dispersant application system (DAS)
Dispersant
In situ burning equipment Fire boom

OPTION 2

Based on the RC the stand-alone equipment is defined as small or large equipment and VOO are classified into small
or large VOO in the “size” property of the RC database (the criteria for the definition of small or large VOO are not
provided in the RC). Based on vessel classification and equipment size the following rules can be applied directly for
large VOO (Table 12) and small VOO (

Table 13).

Page 31 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Table 12 - Large VOO capacity rules.

Operation Equipment Equipment

Deck space Allowed equipment
mode size capacity
1 piece of
K < 200 Tow Small/Large Storage, boom (up to 500 m), fire-boom
each type
1 piece of
K > 200 Tow Small/Large Storage, boom (up to 500 m), fire-boom
each type
Skimmer, boom (up to 500 m), Hi-speed
containment systems storage, fire boom, small
1 piece of
K > 200 Deploy Small/Large dispersant system (DAS and up to 4 m3 of
each type
dispersant), or large dispersant system (DAS and
up to 20 m3 of dispersant)

Table 13 - Small VOO capacity rules.

Operation Equipment Equipment

Deck space Allowed equipment
mode size capacity
K < 200 Tow Small 1 piece Storage, boom (up to 250 m), fire-boom
K > 200 Tow Small 1 piece Storage, boom (up to 250 m), fire-boom
Skimmer, boom (up to 250 m), sweeping arms,
K > 200 Deploy Small 1 piece storage, fire boom, small dispersant system
(DAS and up to 4 m3 of dispersant)

This option is less realistic than Option1 as it does not take into account the available deck space of the vessel and
the size and needs of the equipment. Moreover, it only allows the selection of the equipment specified in (Table 12)
and (

Table 13), regardless of the available deck space left. However, it requires less information about the properties of
the resources, which can be an advantage when the availability of information is limited.

Page 32 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Annex 3. Recovery rates and logistics estimations for Response Simulator

This information was extracted from the document “EMSATOIL Part1 - Feasibility study for the development of
a software tool to support the Member States on oil pollution response operations at sea (Version 3.1)”,
sections “4.6 – Aspects that influence the efficiency of oil spill response operations”, “4.7 – Estimation of
the encounter rate”, and “4.8 – Technical and logistic aspects associated with the deployment of response
assets at sea” for further information please consult the complete document.

Aspects that influence the efficiency of oil spill response operations

The objective of this section is to gather information and discuss the different aspects that influence the efficiency
of oil response operations at sea that could be integrated into the system (weather conditions and characteristics of
the weathered surface oil), as well as to propose technical solutions to incorporate it in the system. These aspects
are addressed in step 2 of the proposed methodology.

As stated in the previous section, weather conditions and oil weathering are important properties to determine the
feasibility and the window of opportunity of the oil spill response techniques. Besides the operability limits that
established the feasibility or not of the response operation, weather conditions and oil weathering also influence its
efficiency.

Specifically for mechanical recovery, the reduction of the efficiency due to weather and oil weathering is especially
important. As mentioned in Section 0, the Nominal Plate Capacity provided by the manufacturer in the technical
documentation of the skimmer is overestimated as is calculated under controlled conditions, which are far from a
real response at sea. To pass from idealized pumping performance to real pumping performance, the skimmers are
affected by several factors, which have to be applied as reductions to the Nominal Plate Capacity, as shown in
Figure 10.

Figure 10 - Diagram of the most relevant reductions in the performance of a skimmer during a mechanical recovery response.

Thus, the following factors are suggested to take into account the nominal plate capacity reduction:

■ Uncontrolled conditions (Reduction 1 – R1): this term refers to factors different from weather conditions and
weathered oil that can reduce the skimmer performance. For example, in a real response, the presence of ice
(Fingas et al., 2011), or debris can reduce the performance of the skimmer even producing a failure and the
consequent reparation. Moreover, the equipment is never used at full pumping capacity. Thus, this reduction is
intended to be applied to simulate possible losses of performance due to these uncontrolled factors. This
parameter should be stated based on expert criteria since there is not a clear and sound quantification of these
reductions in the state-of-the art.

■ Oil viscosity (Reduction 2 – R2): the viscosity of the oil is a primary limitation on the efficiency of most recovery
devices. Oils with high pour points, including some heavy crudes and fuel oils, generally do not flow
easily. If the ambient temperature is below the pour point, the oil will become semi-solid and, hence, will be
difficult to recover, since it will not readily flow towards the skimmer (ITOPF, 2012). Thus, viscosity is an
important factor for skimmer performance. Not all skimmers are efficient for all viscosities. Some guidelines
(e.g. ExxonMobil, 2014) defines qualitatively the performance of the different type of skimmers taking into
account the oil viscosity as can be observed in Figure 11. This qualitative information can be used in addition to
expert criteria to define the reductions associated with oil viscosity.

Page 33 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 11 – Qualitative assessment of several skimmer types based on oil viscosity (ExxonMobil, 2014).

■ Met ocean conditions (Reduction 3 - R3): met ocean conditions also reduce the performance of the skimmers.
As previously mentioned, wind-waves are the main factor that can produce a loss in the performance of the
skimmer. Since wind is an indicator of sea state, it is often used to define performance reductions. Based on
the RC’s methodology, the following ranges for wind are proposed to define the met ocean conditions (see
Table 14):

Table 14 - Met ocean reductions based on RC.

Wind range Reduction

0 – 2 m/s No reduction
2 – 4 m/s 25%
4 – 6 m/s 50%
6 – 8 m/s 75%
8 m/s 90%

After these reductions, the Total Fluid Recovery Rate (TFRR) is calculated. Since the methodology proposed in
Section ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. is based on hourly weather forecasts provided by
European Centres (e.g. Copernicus Marine Service), the TFRR can be calculated every hour to obtain hourly time
series of TFRR. As was mentioned before, TFRR is the total volume recovered on board, this volume is composed
of oil or emulsion and of seawater.

Once the TFRR is estimated, the Recovery Efficiency of the skimmer has to be taken into account. RE is defined
as the percentage of emulsion recovered by a skimmer with reference to the total volume of fluids recovered
(emulsion + seawater). The quantification of these coefficient is complex because the natural process involves met
ocean conditions, the particularities of each skimmer and the viscosity of the emulsion mainly. Therefore, the real
quantity of emulsion recovered without consider the seawater pumped aboard is defined as Oil/Emulsion Recovery
Rate (ORR).

Page 34 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 12 – Conceptual scheme about the implication of the recovery efficiency coefficient

Two potential options are suggested in order to obtain RE percentage:

■ Option 1: current RC classification of the Recovery Efficiency based exclusively on the skimmer type
(Table 15)

Table 15 - Skimmer's Recovery Efficiency (RE) classification of the Response Calculator.

Skimmer type Recovery Efficiency (RE)

Weir 20%
Mix type (weir-brush) 30%
Other oleophilic types (brush, disc, belt…) 40%
High-speed systems (current buster) 70%

■ Option 2: to adopt the use of the Recovery Efficiency charts provided in ROC (see Figure 13) that takes
into account the minimum value obtained by both charts. Figure 13 (left panel) relates the type of skimmer
with the met ocean conditions and Figure 13 (right panel) relates the type of the skimmer with the viscosity
of the oil/emulsion. As mentioned, to obtain a RE for a skimming system ROC compares RE vs. met ocean
conditions and RE vs. viscosity and uses the lower of both values.

Page 35 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 13 - Recovery Efficiency charts provided by ROC (left-chart: based on skimmer type and met ocean conditions; right-
chart: based on skimmer type and oil viscosity).

Estimation of the encounter rate

The objective of this section is to identify, assess, and present one or more technical solutions for capturing the
encounter rate of the response asset with the oil slick in the simulator’s calculation in a realistic manner. These
aspects are addressed in step 2 of the proposed methodology.

The rate at which one can encounter a specific volume of floating oil is one of the most important parameters in the
overall assessment of a given response system’s ability to access and eliminate spilled oil (Allen et al., 2018). The
volume encounter rate will depend upon the system’s swath (i.e., the width of its passage through or over oil), its
speed while accessing the oil, and the average thickness of the oil encountered.

Thus, the encounter rate (see Figure 14) defines the amount of emulsion encountered by the recovery system per
time during the effective skimming period. It is usually defined as a function of the average thickness of the oil slick
(t), the speed of advance of the response system (v), and the swath (w) of the response system as defined in Eq.
(5). For the purpose of clarity, Equation 5 is presented again below:

𝐸𝑛𝑅 𝑚 ⁄𝑠 𝑡 𝑚 𝑤 𝑚 𝑣 𝑚 ⁄𝑠

where t is the oil thickness, w is the swath length, and v is the tow velocity.

Page 36 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 14 - Diagram of the encounter rate variables.

The estimation of the encounter rate according to Equation 5 is based on the following simplifications: i) the oil
thickness is constant in all the areas of the slick, ii) the oil slick is a homogeneous body and the slick always covers
all the swath section and iii) there is not any loss of oil from the system. However, in real spill response, the oil is
usually fragmented into patches and the boom failures are common due to different causes, such as the excess of
the first loss speed while towing and because the effect of the wind-waves mainly that produce the splash over the
boom.

To calculate the encounter rate more realistically the aforementioned factors have to be considered in the analysis.
Regarding the oil thickness, the oil spill models generally provide an average oil slick thickness, so there is little
room for improvement in this issue.

Therefore, to improve the calculation of the encounter rate (Eq. 5) the following aspects can be considered:

■ Fragmentation level of the slick: the oil slick is usually encountered disaggregated in several non-homogenous
patches of emulsified product as it is represented in Figure 14. The quantity of gaps or discontinuities is defined
by some authors as level of fragmentation of an oil slick. This value could be considered as a reduction
percentage in Equation 10, as follows:

𝐸𝑛𝑅 𝑚 ⁄𝑠 𝑡 𝑚 𝑤 𝑚 𝑣 𝑚 ⁄𝑠 1 𝐹𝑃 (10)

where t, w, and v are defined in equation 5 and FP is the fragmentation percentage (0 to 1) of the slick. Since
oil spill models do not provide the level of fragmentation of the slick, FP could be defined by the user taking into
account, for example, the field observations. Default value will be defined as 0% of fragmentation.

■ Boom losses: two options are provided to quantify the boom losses. The first one (Option 1) is to consider a
reduction percentage in Equation (11), as follows:

𝐸𝑛𝑅 𝑚 ⁄𝑠 𝑡 𝑚 𝑤 𝑚 𝑣 𝑚 ⁄𝑠 1 𝐹𝑃 1 BLP (11)

where t, w, v, and FP are defined in Equation 9 and BLP is the boom loss percentage (0 to 1) due to boom
failures, which has to be defined based on expert criteria. Several guidelines and reviews in mechanical
recovery define qualitative performance (good/poor, Figure 15) of the booms under specific conditions (Fingas
et al., 2011; Exxonmobil, 2014). The reduction percentages can be defined based on the qualitative
assessment available in the state-of-the-art and applying expert criteria.

Page 37 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 15 – Qualitative assessment of the boom performance under wind, waves, and currents (Exxonmobil, 2014).

The second one (Option 2) is based on the work proposed by Kim et al (2019). In this work, the authors state a
formulation for the quantification of these loss rates due to boom failures (Kim et al., 2019). The implementation
of this formulation can be carried out to better evaluate these losses and subtract this rate directly from the
encounter rate at each time step of evaluation.

𝐸𝑛𝑅 𝑚 ⁄𝑠 𝑡 𝑚 𝑤 𝑚 𝑣 𝑚⁄𝑠 1 𝐹𝑃 𝐵𝐿𝑅 𝑚 /𝑠 (12)

where t, w, v, and FP are defined in equation 2 and BLR is the boom loss rate (m3/s) due to boom failures.

The implementation of this formulation is based on complex equations that require the following variables: water
density, oil density, gravitational acceleration, oil-water surface tension, oil boom draft, oil relative density with the
water, wave steepness, buoyancy-weight ratio of the boom. It is worth mentioning that, as far as the authors of this
report are aware, there are no applications of this methodology in response simulator systems or software.

Finally, the estimation of the oil recovered by the mechanical recovery system can be calculated by taking into
account the Encounter Rate, as well as, the Nominal Capacity Reductions (R1, R2, and R3) and Recovery
Efficiency proposed in Section 0. The maximum oil or emulsion recovered by the skimmer and pumped on board
will depend on the capacity of the skimmer and the oil encountered (see Figure 16). If there is not enough
oil/emulsion encountered, then the maximum ORR rate possible will be equal to the Encounter Rate and the rest of
ratios can be derived based on this fact.

Page 38 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Figure 16 - Conceptual scheme of the complete methodology for calculating recovery rates including the limit imposed by the
encounter rate.

Technical and logistic aspects associated with the deployment of response assets at sea
The objective of this section is to identify and assess the technical and logistic aspects associated with the
deployment of response assets at sea, as well as to identify the critical issues and propose solutions on how to
integrate them into the system. These aspects are addressed in step 3 of the proposed methodology.

Once recovery estimation is calculated, it is possible to define the precise schedule of the recovery operations, usually
defined in blocks of transit – recovery – transit – unload (see Figure 17). The working hours are set by default for the
entire EU region, but they can also be defined by the user.

Figure 17 - Schedule of the recovery operations.

A brief review of the main operations shown in Figure 17 is provided below.

■ Mobilization Time

Page 39 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

This period takes into account the necessary time to activate the resources, prepare equipment, and travel from
home base to the emergency base. Therefore, it is suggested the use of pathing algorithms to calculate these transit
times. The activation and preparation times are properties of each resource. The resources will not be scheduled at
the response until reach the emergency base, once this point will be achieving the schedule for this resource will be
calculated for each following day as is shown in Figure 17.

𝑀𝑇 ℎ 𝑉𝑉 𝑚/ℎ D 𝑚 𝐴𝑇 ℎ 𝑃𝑇 ℎ (13)

where MT stands for Mobilization Time, VV stands for vessel velocity, D is the path to travel from the
home base to the emergency base, AT stands for the Activation Time and PT for the Preparation Time.

■ Backup Time (1)

A daily backup time to take into account maintenance of the equipment, delays, and other unpredictable and
inefficient times is proposed. By default, the system is suggested to define a small percentage relative to the
complete working day to standardize this parametrization. It has to be highlighted that this time will be excluded
from the working day even when operations do not require it. Therefore, it is important to not overestimate this
value. A value smaller than 5% is suggested (i.e.: 5% of an 8h working day results in 25 min backup time, and for a
10h working day in 30 minutes). However, this backup time (default value) should be defined according to expert
criteria and user will be allowed to modify it. Backup-time (BT) can be defined as:

𝐵𝑇 ℎ 𝑊𝐷 ℎ 𝐵𝑇𝑃 % (14)

where WD stands for the hours of the Working Day, and BTP for Backup-Time Percentage.

■ Transit Time (2)

Transit time is the time needed to navigate to the scene where the oil slick is located, and the recovery operations
will be carried out. This navigation can be calculated at the vessel navigational speed and based on pathfinding
algorithms. This time will take into account the update of the oil slick location based on the centre of mass evolution
provided by oil spill numerical models. Information about the evolution of the centre of mass of the spill is
calculated by oil spill models and the estimation of the transit time (when needed) can be performed using
modelled location provided by the oil spill model. Transit time (TT) will be estimated by means of the vessel velocity
(VV) and the distance (Dport-spill) from the centre of mass of the oil spill and the reference port of the vessel at
required time this phase. This phase also will include the deployment or recovery of all the necessary resources
(Auxiliary time) like booms and skimmer deployment before starting the skimming operations or its recovery before
transit to discharge the vessel tank at the port, as follows:

𝑇𝑇 ℎ 𝑉𝑉 𝑚/ℎ D , 𝑚 𝐴𝑢𝑥 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 ℎ (15)

■ Recovery period (3)

The recovery period (3) is the effective time during which the skimmer is actively pumping fluid on board. Based on
RC rules, the recovery period is limited when: i) the storage is full (90% total capacity); ii) endurance of vessel is
over; ii) daily work hours are over or iii) the total oil spill is recovered (whichever occurs first). Thus, the amount of
oil recovered can be calculated based on hourly rates for each hour as:

𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑂𝑖𝑙/𝐸𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 ℎ 𝑂𝑖𝑙/𝑒𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑚 /ℎ (16)

and the total amount of volume recovered on board can be calculated, also based on hourly rates for each hour as:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 recovered 𝑚 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 ℎ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑚 /ℎ (17)

When a vessel is deployed conducting mechanical recovery, it will recover oil to fill its on board storage capacity.
The storage capacity will determine the maximum working time in which the collection operation can be carried out.
Thus, using the total fluid recovered ratios for each hour of work (TFRRt), and the precise recovery time (RT)
needed during the last hour of recovery to reach the storage capacity (RTt=n), the maximum Total Recovery Period
(TRP) will be reached, as reads the following condition (RTt = 1 hour and RTt=n < 1 hour):

Page 40 of 53
 EMSA/NEG/5/2021

𝑆𝐶 𝑚 ∑ 𝑇𝐹𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑇 𝑇𝐹𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑇 ) (18)

Some vessels are equipped with on board decanting capacity that enhances their capacity to remain longer on the
scene. According to RC, only OSRV vessels can perform decanting based on two rules: i) 30 % of the daily total
amount of water in the recovered product can be decanted if heating is available and ii) if heating is not available
15% of the total amount of water in the recovered product can be decanted.

Finally, during recovery operations of dedicated vessels a specific break does is not included in Figure 17 can occur
and it is called “On scene stand by”. This term refers to hours of non-effective work on scene due to night
conditions, unexpected weather conditions, or simply taking a break in the middle of continuous deployment or
recovery operations.

■ Discharge, unload, or reload operations (4)

It refers to the transfer of the recovered oil/emulsion from skimmers to storage platforms. Time is based on the
discharge rate of the asset, following RC rules, discharge time is estimated with a 60% performance of the total
discharge capacity of the asset:

𝐷𝑇 ℎ 𝐷𝑅 𝑚 /ℎ 60% (19)

where DT stands for Discharge time, and DR for the asset discharge rate. In the case of the reload operations for
other techniques a fixed time will be established to consider the recharge of dispersants and other resources.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the possibility that the response operation may not be completed or may
need to be modified due to:

− Breaks and failures of the equipment (normally associated with skimmer/pumps/booms due to high
currents, presence of debris, maintenance failures, bad practices…)
− Improvement of the met ocean forecast to obtain reliable forecasts
− Add new relevant information collected during the first stages of the response as aerial/satellite imagery, oil
properties measurements…

These problems make it necessary to re-evaluate the chosen alternatives, make changes to the selected
equipment, activate new assets... All these situations are considered to be allowed by a re-initialization functionality
of the simulations as described in Section ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia..

Page 41 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Annex 4. Use cases

In this annex, it is included the total of Use cases defined in the framework of this project. Each Use case includes
a Use case diagram following UML conventions and a table that explains the use case and its main point in text
form.

Use case No. 1 – USER ROLES AND MAIN FUNCTIONALITIES OF THE SERVICE

Purpose Define the main functionalities depending on each user’s role

Associated
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 16, 21, 22, 33, 34, 38, 40, 42
Requirements:
Actors: User, Service Manager, and Service Administrator
Preconditions: 1. The user is logged into the system.
Service User.
1. The user selects an existent emergency but also is allowed to create a new one and
select this emergency to access the main functionalities of the system.
2. The user will be able to access the section “Oil Spill Modelling” where he is allowed to
perform three main actions:
2.1. Create a OSM simulation
2.2. Load an existent OSM simulation and visualize its results. During the visualization
of the results, the user will be able to trigger the process of restart a simulation
from an specific timestep.
2.3. Import a third-party OSM simulation and visualize its results.
3. The user will be able to access the section “Response simulator” where he is allowed
to perform two main actions:
3.1. Create a RS simulation
3.2. Load an existent RS simulation and visualize its results. During the visualization
of the results, the user will be able to trigger the process of restart a simulation
from an specific timestep.
4. The user will be able to access the section “Metocean & Imagery” to perform two main
Main Flow:
actions:
4.1. Access and visualize metocean data.
4.2. Access and visualize Satellite and aerial imagery. In this section the user will be
allowed to import imagery from files and external services as CleanSeaNet. Also,
the user will be able to digitalize oil slicks during the visualization of the images
(based on GIS functionalities).

Service Manager. Service managers will be allowed to perform extra capabilities.

1. Manage all databases with exception of the defaults registers.
2. Manage operability limits used for the assessment of the window of opportunity in the
Response Simulator module.
3.
Service Administrator. This role will be allowed to perform the complete set of capabilities
of the system. Which includes:
1. Manage the mapping of users and roles
2. Manage users
3. Manage default registers and information

Page 42 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Page 43 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Use case No. 2 - PERFORM A NEW SIMULATION WITH THE OIL SPILL MODELLING (OSM) MODULE

Define the user workflow to perform a new oil spill simulation to forecast the evolution of the
Purpose
trajectories and weathering of an oil spill.
Associated
16, 17, 20, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44
Requirements:
Actors: The user.
1. The user is logged into the system.
Preconditions:
2. The emergency is already created in the system and the user has already selected it.
1. The user accesses the section “New simulation” of the OSM module.
2. The user defines the oil spill properties (substance, volume/mass spilled, initial
geometry: point or polygon, the thickness of the spill…)
3. The user defines the properties of the simulation (Simulation domain, initial time,
calibration coefficients…)
Main Flow:
4. The user selects the provider and dataset to use for each forcing desired in the
simulation (currents, winds, and/or waves).
5. Finally, the user triggers the execution of the implemented oil spill model, which
automatically saves the simulation in the database or if the process fails, exposes errors
on the web and to the Nagios sensors of the system to be monitored.
If there is an error during the simulation. The error will be displayed and exposed through
Alternative flow 1:
Nagios sensors to be monitored and logged.
1. A OSM simulation must be created in the Emergency database, or an error message
Post Conditions:
must be displayed and logged in Nagios.
Notes:

Page 44 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Page 45 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Use case No. 3 - PERFORM A NEW SIMULATION WITH THE RESPONSE SIMULATOR (RS) MODULE

Purpose Define the user workflow to perform a new RS.

Associated
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
Requirements:
Actors: The user.
1. The user is logged into the system.
Preconditions: 2. The emergency is already created in the system and the user has already selected it.
3. A previous OSM simulation has been performed.
1. The user accesses the section “New simulation” of the RS module.
2. The user loads an OSM simulation from the Emergency database (precondition 3).
3. The user is able to define which metocean datasets to use in the simulation range if the
OSM simulation was imported from a third-party OSM simulation (In that case,
metocean data used in this OSM simulation should be unknown).
4. Window of opportunity will be calculated based on the current information provided and
the system will automatically show the access to the different sites to define the
response.
5. The user will define the response (window of opportunity will be visible and updated
Main Flow: dynamically during the definition):
5.1. The user will select the type of response.
5.2. The user will select the equipment and resources
5.3. The user will be able to force any day, even though the operational rules will
recommend not to work.
5.4. The user will be able to modify key parameters to configure how the schedule of
the operations will be done by the system.
6. Finally, the user will trigger the execution of the methodology by pressing a button and
accepting all the previous response definitions. After the computation and saved in the
database the system will show the results.
Alternative flow 1: If there is no previous simulation, the user will not have the option to load any simulation.
If there is an error during the simulation. The error will be displayed and exposed through
Alternative flow 2:
Nagios sensors to be monitored and logged.
1. A new RS simulation must be created in the Emergency database, or an error message
Post Conditions:
has to be displayed and logged in Nagios.
Notes:

Page 46 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Page 47 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Use case No. 4 - RESTART SIMULATION TO IMPLEMENT NEW OIL SPILL POLYGON FROM SATELLITE
IMAGERY

Define the user workflow to create a new simulation from the results of a previous
Purpose
one updating inputs with a new oil slick shape extracted from satellite imagery.
Associated Requirements: 16, 20, 21, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44
Actors: The user.
1. The user is logged into the system.
2. The emergency is already created in the system and the user has already
selected it.
Preconditions:
3. A previous OSM simulation has been performed.
4. Oil spill polygons have been created in the emergency database see Use case
n.3.
1. The user accesses the section “Load simulation” of the OSM module.
2. The user selects the simulation to be loaded (precondition 3)
3. The user selects the timestep of the simulation closest to the date and time of
the satellite image used in precondition 4.
4. The user clicks over a button to access the “New simulation” section. A default
setup configuration will be loaded from the results of the timestep (see point 3
above).
5. The user modifies the spill location and geometry by selecting one or several
Main Flow: polygons created in precondition 4.
6. (Optional - Extend) the user can select to update the initial mass/volume of the
new simulation, via two alternatives:
6.1. The system calculates the percentage of area each polygon associated with
the satellite image (the sum of the percentage area of all polygons should
be 100 %).
6.2. The user manually assigns a thickness to each polygon.
7. The user triggers the execution of the simulation from the time selected in point
3 above by pressing a button.
If there is no previous simulation, the user will not have the option to load any
Alternative flow 1:
simulation.
If there is no polygon saved in the emergency database, the user will not have the
Alternative flow 2:
option to load any polygon.
If there is an error during the simulation. The error will be displayed and exposed
Alternative flow 3:
through Nagios sensors to be monitored and logged.
1. A new OSM simulation is created in the Emergency database, or an error
Post Conditions:
message is displayed and logged in Nagios.
Notes:

Page 48 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Page 49 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

USE CASE n.5 - DIGITALIZE OIL SPILL POLYGON(S) FROM SATELLITE IMAGERY PROVIDER

Define the user workflow to digitalize the oil slicks (oil polygons) with the help of a satellite
Purpose
image and the implemented GIS capabilities included in the Web app.
Associated
8, 9, 11, 38, 39
Requirements:
Actors: The user.
1. The user is logged into the system.
Preconditions: 2. The emergency is already created in the system and the user has already selected it.
3. The system has access to satellite images via WMS protocol.
1. The user accesses the section “Satellite Imagery” of the “Satellite” module. The system
will display the images available according to the criteria defined by the user i.e., time
and area of the simulation.
2. The user selects a satellite image containing the oil slick (precondition 3)
3. The user digitalizes the slick(s) creating polygons by means of the GIS capabilities
included in the Web app. Note if oil slicks are detected in a CSN image, the system
Main Flow:
shall use the polygon(s) created by CSN for this oil slick(s).
4. The user saves the polygon by fulfilling a name, and description (optional) and clicking
a button.
4.1. The system calculates the percentage of area that represents each polygon in the
total area of the spill. This information is defined as an attribute of each polygon.
4.2. The system saves the specific date and time of the satellite image.
Alternative flow 1: If there is no access to satellite images, the user will not have the option to load any image.
1. A new polygon layer register must be created in the Emergency database – Oil spill
Post Conditions:
polygons section.
Notes:

Page 50 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Page 51 of 53
EMSA/NEG/5/2021

Annex 5. Mapping between actions and roles

In this annex, the mapping between different actions and roles are defined in a matrix allowing to visualize if each
role is allowed to perform each action.

ROL
ACTION
user manager administrator
Emergency database (emergencies, simulations, and oil spill polygons)
View emergencies created by himself ✔ ✔ ✔
View emergencies by other users of the same nation ✔ ✔ ✔
View emergencies created by other users of different nation ✖ ✖ ✔
View default emergencies ✔ ✔ ✔
Manage emergencies created by himself ✔ ✔ ✔
Manage emergencies created by other users of the same nation ✖ ✔ ✔
Manage emergencies created by other users of different nation ✖ ✖ ✔
Manage default emergencies ✖ ✖ ✔
Create his own emergencies ✔ ✔ ✔
Create default emergencies ✖ ✖ ✔
Oil database
View oil substances created by himself ✔ ✔ ✔
View oil substances by other users of the same nation ✔ ✔ ✔
View oil substances created by other users of different nation ✖ ✖ ✔
View default oil substances ✔ ✔ ✔
Manage oil substances created by himself ✖ ✔ ✔
Manage oil substances created by other users of the same nation ✖ ✖ ✔
Manage oil substances created by other users of different nation ✖ ✖ ✔
Manage default oil substances ✖ ✖ ✔
Create his own oil substances ✖ ✔ ✔
Create default oil substances ✖ ✖ ✔
Oil pollution resources and response equipment database
View resources and equipment created by himself ✔ ✔ ✔
View resources and equipment by other users of the same nation ✔ ✔ ✔
View resources and equipment created by other users of different nation ✖ ✖ ✔
View default resources and equipment ✔ ✔ ✔
Manage resources and equipment created by himself ✖ ✔ ✔
Manage resources and equipment created by other users of the same nation ✖ ✖ ✔
Manage resources and equipment created by other users of different nation ✖ ✖ ✔
Manage default resources and equipment ✖ ✖ ✔
Create his own resources and equipment ✖ ✔ ✔
Create default resources and equipment ✖ ✖ ✔

Page 52 of 53
Nº Requirement
Title Priority Description Acceptance Criteria
Type
USE CASES
UC. Use case: FUN - Functional Should - All the functionalities are included in the system
1 User roles and main functionalities of the have
service - Roles allow users to perform specific functionalities as defined in the use case
diagram.

See the complete use case in annex 4

UC. Use case: Perform OSM simulation FUN - Functional Must have - Use case functionalities are included in the system
2

See the complete use case in annex 4

UC. Use case: Perform RS Simulation FUN - Functional Must have - Use case functionalities are included in the system
3

See the complete use case in annex 4

UC. Use case: perform simulation re-start FUN - Functional Must have - Use case functionalities are included in the system
4

See the complete use case in annex 4

UC. Use case: digitalize oil spill polygons FUN - Functional Must have - Use case functionalities are included in the system
5

See the complete use case in annex 4

Nº Title Requirement Type Priority Description Acceptance Criteria
OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM
1 General view, modules, and sections INF - Informative Should have The app should have the following modules:
- Emergency module
- Simulations module
o Oil Spil Modelling
o Response simulator
- Meteocean module
- Satellite module
- Databases module
- User module

2 Main functionalities of the system INF - Informative Should have Main functionalities of the system:

3 General structure of the databases FUN - Functional Must have Three databases will be developed to contain data required or - The three databases (Emergency, Oil, and Oil pollution resources
created by the system, following the structure: and response equipment are implemented and accessible to the
1. Emergency database users of the system.
1.1. Emergency properties
1.2. Oil spill polygons - The subsections of the Emergency database are implemented in
1.3. OSM simulations the emergency databases as specific tables.
1.4. RS simulations
2. Oil database - Database privileges are managed based on the mapping of roles
3. Oil pollution resources and response equipment database and actions that can be defined using the functionality of req.6
(“Mapping between roles and actions”).
 - At least the minimum auditing info of the records will be saved in
the databases.

Minimum auditing info should be included, at least: the creator,

the last update of each item, and the corresponding timestamps

AUTHENTICATION AND AUTHORISATION

4 Login, authentication, and FUN – Functional Must have Only authenticated users will access the Web app. - Users are able to authenticate as required and log into the
authorization of users The service will use EMSA’s Identity Provider Oauth2/OpenID system.
connect system to authenticate and authorize user access.
Further details will be provided during the project execution.
5 User roles FUN - Functional Must have The Service will consider the following user roles: - The service has a method to create, modify and delete user roles.
- The role “Service administrator” will allow access to all
functionalities of the system. - login with each of the roles (service administrator, service
- The role “Service manager” will allow access to the following manager, service user) and allow access to their corresponding
functionalities: Update of the databases (emergencies, oil spill, functionalities (and not more).
resources & equipment created by himself or by other users of the
same country) and operability rules. - Specific actions or functionalities of each role are defined in
- The role “Service user” will allow access to the modelling req.6.
capabilities (oil spill and response simulator)
- “service manager” will be able to modify the default operativity
thresholds regarding each kind of equipment as defined in the
operativity rules defined in annex 2.

6 Mapping between roles and actions FUN - Functional Must have The web app will include a section for mapping and managing the - The user is capable to visualize the mapping of privileges between
privileges of each role for each action of the system. roles and actions.
The mapping of actions and roles are defined in Annex 5 as a
matrix in which are included the default set of privileges. Graphical -The user, with the required privileges, is capable to modify the
example: privileges of each role for each action.

WEB APP AND GIS CAPABILITIES

7 Visualize geospatial information FUN - Functional Must have The Web app will be able to visualize on the map spatial data from - Vector data is visualized (e.g. coastlines, vector data from CGD)
data providers via interoperability protocols (OGC Services) such as
the Central Geographical Database (CGD), Electronic Nautical - Raster data is visualized (e.g. bathymetries from EMODNet, raster
Charts (ENC), EMODNet, among others. data from CGD)

8 Web map and geospatial FUN - Functional Must have The Web app will include a web map and geospatial functionalities - The Web app provides standard geospatial functionalities (e.g.
functionalities to visualize GIS data (e.g. zoom, pan, and identify) through any zoom, pan, identify)
standard Web browser (e.g. Chrome)

9 Drawing Oil spill polygon FUN - Functional Must have End users will be able to draw the geospatial location of the oil spill - The Web app provides a section to draw the oil spill geometry.
on the web map. The Web app will provide mapping tools to
obtain the oil spill geometry (e.g. end users could draw the - Oil spill polygons will be saved in the emergency database
geometry over an aerial image uploaded by them).
10 Uploading Oil spill polygon FUN - Functional Must have The oil spill geometry provided by data services such as - The Web app provides a section that allows uploading oil spill
CleanSeaNet will be able to be uploaded and used by the System. geometries.
Samples of the files and format will be provided.
Moreover, OGC standard formats will be also considered. - The geometries are visualized correctly (georeferenced) on the
Web map.

- The status messages (success, failure, etc.) are shown.

11 Visualize Metocean, satellite, and FUN - Functional Should have The listed Metocean data will be visualized thanks to the - The selected metocean, satellite, and aerial products can be
aerial images interoperability protocols (WMS, WCS, etc.) from metocean data visualized on the web map.
or the metocean service from ETLs. The system will allow to:
- Visualize the metocean products selected on the Web map. - Selected metocean, satellite, and aerial products can be activated
- Visualize real-time (e.g buoys, HF Radar) and metocean and deactivated for visualization on the Web map.
conditions (metocean modelling products) on the Web map.
- Visualize satellite and aerial images provided by the Earth
Observation Data Centre (EODC) or Remotely Piloted Aircraft
Systems Data Centre (RPAS DC) via interoperability protocols (OGC
Services).
12 Upload aerial images FUN - Functional Should have The system will be able to upload aerial images in GeoTIFF and - The Web app provides a section that allows uploading aerial
GMLJP2 format (e.g. images provided by drones) images.
The system will provide information messages when uploading
aerial images, e.g. success, failure, and error messages. - The uploaded images are visualized correctly (georeferenced) on
the Web map.

- Status messages (success, failure, etc.) are shown.

EMERGENCY
13 Emergency section FUN – Functional Should have A section for the selection (by name, owner, country, ID…) or - A section to create or select an existent emergency is the first
creation of an emergency will be provided. This will be the first step in the system after the user is logged in.
step for the user after logging into the system (e.g., pop-up
window). - The user can create an emergency.
Emergencies will be registered in the “Emergencies database” and
for a creation of a new emergency, at least the following - The user can access an existent emergency.
information will be requested from the user:
1) Name
 2) Domain of the Emergency (req.14) - The user is capable to search emergency at least by the following
3) Initial point/area of the emergency fields: name, owner, country, and ID.
4) Initial date/time of the emergency

14 Define emergency domain FUN - Functional Should have A section for the creation of the emergency domain and searching - The user is capable to define the domain of the emergency by
metocean and satellite products for an area of interest will be selecting a box or providing box coordinates.
provided.
In this section, end users will be able to select the domain of the - The user can not define a box with an area bigger than X km2.
emergency by drawing a box on the Web map (a maximum area
will be defined by default, X km2).

15 Search for metocean and satellite FUN - Functional Should have Based on the domain defined in req.14, the list of data products - A Web searching tool (based on an area of search) provides a list
data (e.g. wind, waves, currents, satellite) & data providers (e.g. of available metocean products and satellite data for a given
Copernicus, ECMWF, NOAA, EMODnet) and the status of the emergency domain.
interoperability protocols available will be shown.
The user will be able to activate the operational downloading and - The status of the interoperability protocols (Opendap, WMS,
put into service the WMS and WCS protocols nonactive natively by WCS…) of metocean and satellite data of external providers is
the provider. shown.

-The user is able to trigger (or not) the process to activate

WMS/WCS protocols if it is not provided by the provider (req.35
and req.36)

OIL SPILL MODELLING (OSM)

16 OSM Module FUN – Functional Must have The system contains a specific module for OSM which is divided Through this module the user will be able to:
into the following sections at least:
1) Create new OSM simulation: setup, perform and save an - Create a new OSM simulation. Includes the setup and execution
OSM simulation with the oil spill model integrated into the of the numerical model and automatically saves the setup and
system (please see the specific use case in annex 4). results in the Emergency database.

2) Load OSM simulation: load and visualize the results of an - Load an OSM simulation performed by the system. Includes the
existing OSM simulation performed within the system. load from the Emergency database and visualizations of the
results.
3) Import third-party OSM simulation: import results files of a
third-party oil spill model, transform data to system - Upload third-party OMS simulation result files (req.18) and
structure by using a specific ETL, and save the simulation perform ETL process (req.19) to standardize information to the
into the system database. system structure. Finally, the results will be saved in the
Emergency database.
17 Oil spill modelling functionality FUN - Functional Must have The Web application will allow to setup and run the selected oil - The Web app provides a section to run oil spill simulations.
spill model to predict the trajectory, dispersion, and weathering of
oil spills at sea considering the metocean conditions at the spill site - The Web app section includes the functionality to provide all
(area of work). parameters necessary for the OSM to run.
All parameters necessary for the OSM to run will be provided and
be fed into the system through the “Create new OSM simulation - The status messages of the simulation (success, failure, etc.) are
section”. The main parameters to be defined are: shown.
1) Initial time of the release
2) Initial geometry of the release (point or polygon and - The model can run one or several oil spills.
thickness of the initial slick)
 3) Substance released (selected from the oil database
integrated into the system)
4) Definition of general simulation parameters (duration of
the simulation, processes to be simulated, calibration
parameters)
5) Selection of the forcing datasets (winds, currents, and
waves)
The model should also be able to run several independent spills to
take into account the division of the oil spill into several slicks. This
process is achieved by means of the manual restart of an existing
simulation (see use case 4).
18 Third-party OSM outputs upload FUN - Functional Must have The Oil Spill Modelling (OSM) outputs upload functionality will - The Web app provides a section that allows uploading the results
functionality allow to: from oil spill numerical models.
- uploading data files containing geometries from the outputs of oil
spill modelling results (shp, csv, xml, gml, or other required
formats for the selected models that the app is intended to be
compatible with).
- uploading data files containing coverages from the outputs of oil
spill modelling results (raster, netCDF, or other required formats
for the selected models that the app is intended to be compatible
with).
This functionality is the first step of the OSM module – section 3
(Import third-party OSM simulation).

19 ETLs for third-party OSM outputs FUN - Functional Must have The Oil Spill Modelling (OSM) output uploaded is extracted, - The geometries or coverages are visualized on the Web map and
transformed to the system’s data structure, and loaded in memory their visualization can be activated or deactivated.
to be managed in the emergency database. This step is the second
part of the importation of third-party model results. Has to be - Status messages (success, failure, etc.) are shown.
mentioned that each model required to be compatible will need a
specific ETL due to the lack of homogeneity in the results structure - The minimum variables required from an OSM to feed Response
(formats, variable names, units…) Simulator (RS) and detailed in annex 1 can be loaded and
The system will provide processing messages when processing the visualized.
uploaded data file, e.g. success, failure, and error messages.
This ETL also triggers the saving of the simulation in the system’s - The ETL triggers the storing of this information and creates a
Emergency database. simulation register in the OSM database.

20 Metocean data access for OSM FUN - Functional Must have The Oil Spill Modelling will access the required data from the - Metocean data are not downloaded. The OSM uses direct access
metocean data providers (Copernicus, ECMWF, NOAA, EMODnet, to data through interoperability protocols
etc.) making use of interoperability protocols (such as OpenDAP)
21 Restart from existing OSM simulation FUN – Functional Must have The system will allow the user to restart an OSM simulation, which - The user is capable to perform an OSM simulation from an
means, using the setup data and a specific timestep results data of existing one.
an existent simulation to feed the setup of a new simulation.
Restart information will feed the default setup values of the new - The user is capable of modifying any setup value before running
simulation and the user will be able to modify any of them. the new OSM simulation.
This functionality will be accessed through a button at the
visualization of the results of an OSM simulation. - The user can access this functionality from the visualization of
OSM simulation results.
RESPONSE SIMULATOR (RS)
22 RS module FUN – Functional Must have The system contains a specific module for RS which is divided into Through this module the user will be able to:
the following sections at least:
1) Create new RS simulation: setup, perform and save an RS - Create a new RS simulation. Includes the setup and execution of
simulation (please see the specific use case in annex 4). the Response simulator methodology and automatically saves the
setup and results in the Emergency database.
2) Load RS simulation: load and visualize the results of an
existing RS simulation performed from the system - Load an RS simulation. Includes the load from the Emergency
database. database and visualizations of the results.

23 RS methodology INF - Informative Should have The response simulator will be based on 4 steps.

24 RS - Window opportunity and INF - Informative Should have Window opportunity and response equipment workflow
response equipment workflow

25 RS – Window Opportunity FUN - Functional Must have The system will provide the window of opportunity for the - The Web app provides the window opportunity for OSM
response operation. For this purpose, it will use specific metocean simulation and metocean datasets.
relevant variables (visibility, air temperature, wind, currents, and
wave fields) and oil thickness to ensure that response and each - The window of opportunity will be automatically updated (based
specific equipment will be used under its required conditions. on the process defined in requirements 28.a) during the selection
of “type of response” and “equipment selected”.

- The window of opportunity will present the option to force a

working day declared not feasible and to revert this change using
buttons. (See requirement 28.b)
 The window of opportunity will be informative; the user may
disregard the window of opportunity.

26 RS – Assignment of resources FUN - Functional Must have The system will automatically provide the assignment of resources. - The Web app allows the oil spill simulation to be uploaded.
When an oil spill simulation is loaded in the RS the following
process must be automatically triggered. Based on the initial point - Once uploaded, the Web app provides a sorted list for each
of the center of mass of the spill and the window of opportunity, a recovery equipment.
sorted list for each recovery equipment must be visualized on the
Web map to support the user in the selection of the resources. - Sorting can be done by the options described.
This list will be sorted by considering different options: 1) the
minimum mobilization time required for each piece of equipment, - The system automatically updates the window of opportunity
2) distance to the oil spill, 3) oil spill recovery capacity, 4) rate, 5) based on the equipment selected.
name,6) code.
In the case of the skimmers, the viscosity of the oil will be also - The system automatically neglects the selection of incompatible
considered to sort this kind of equipment. types of equipment or response types due to operability rules
(annex 2).

- Controls the stock of resources, also when multiple oil slicks are
under response
27 RS – Check feasibility FUN - Functional Must have The system will check if recovery operations are feasible on the The Web app automatically provides the window of opportunity
specific working day of the simulation with the complete for the selections stated by checking if recovery operations are
equipment selected in requirement 26. The result of this process is feasible.
the window of opportunity shown in requirement 26.
- The web shows a message about what criteria are failing to
declare that day as a feasible day.

28 RS – Force working in not feasible FUN - Functional Must have If the operation is not feasible for a working day, the user will have - The web allows to force any day not feasible for response by
days the opportunity to force the working day despite the pressing a button for that specific working day.
recommendation regarding the window of opportunity based on
the equipment and response operativity thresholds. - The web shows the message “forced!” when the user forces a
If the user forces a workday, the system will use the limit values of working day.
the threshold of the variable(s) that are not passing the criteria
stated. And the system will update the working days. - The interface has the option to revert a forced day to the original
state before the user clicks the button to force.

29 RS – Schedule configuration and FUN - Functional Must have The user will be able to configure the time of start and end of the - The user can modify the initial and end times of the working day.
trigger calculation working day, and if unload operations are allowed out of the
working day days (the web app will provide default values). - The user can modify if unload operations are allowed outside of
working hours.
After modifying or not these options, the user will be able to - The web allows accepting working days by pressing the button
trigger the calculations of the schedule (29), rates (30), and “Start response simulation”.
summary of the response (31).
- This action triggers the calculations of the response simulator
defined in requirements 29, 30, and 31.

30 RS – Schedule recovery operations FUN - Functional Must have The Web app will automatically schedule the recovery operations - The user can modify the start and end times of working days.
for the working days.
Once hourly recovery rates (requirement 30) are calculated, the -The user can allow unloading operations outside the working day
web app will define the schedule of the recovery operations by period.
blocks of transit – recovery – transit – unload.
A daily time backup will be added to consider possible - The Web app automatically schedules recovery operations based
maintenance of the equipment, delays, and other unpredictable on transit times and time loading oil and time unloading oil at the
and inefficient periods. port.
 The user will have the possibility to accept the unloading of the
recovery product outside the working day (optionally) and to - Show interactive Gant’s diagram of the response operations
modify the start and end times of the working day.

31 RS – Recovery rates FUN - Functional Must have The Web app will allow calculating hourly recovery rates for that - The Web app calculates recovery rates according to the stated
specific working day: Total Fluid Recovery Rate (TFRR) and the methodology in annex 3.
Oil/Emulsion Recovery Rate (ORR) will be calculated for mechanical
recovery response, considering the encountered rate as the
maximum oil volume possible to be recovered per hour.

32 RS – Summary FUN - Functional Must have The Web app will provide a summary of the simulation time - The Web app provides a summary of the response simulator
horizon. The results provided by the RS will be: (1) the amount of results.
oil removed/dispersed/burned, (2) the operation schedule, and (3)
the cost summary of the operations. - The Web app provides visualization of the results in pie charts,
The visualization of the results will be presented employing pie bar charts, or other kinds of representation.
charts, bar charts, stacked bar diagrams, line diagrams, area charts,
and/or Gant’s diagrams. Interactive charts are recommended to - The results can be exported to pdf, csv, and xlsx formats.
improve user experience.
Option to export results to standard formats as pdf, csv, and excel
spreadsheet must be provided.
33 Restart from RS simulation FUN – Functional Must have The system will allow the user to restart an OSM and RS - The user is capable to perform an RS and OSM simulation from an
simulation, which means, using the setup data and a specific existing one.
timestep results data of an existing OSM and RS simulation to feed
the setup of an RS and OSM new simulation. - The user is capable of modifying any setup value before running
Restart information will feed the default setup values of the new the new OSM or RS simulation.
simulation and the user will be able to modify any of them.
This functionality will be accessed by employing a button at the - The user can access this functionality from the visualization of RS
visualization of the results of an RS simulation and the user will be simulation results.
able to run only a new RS simulation skipping the setup and
execution of an OSM simulation -The user can select to set up and execute only the RS simulation,
using the existing OSM simulation.

METOCEAN & IMAGERY

34 List of metocean and satellite data FUN - Functional Should have The list of metocean and satellite products available for the area of - The list includes real-time, forecasting, and satellite products.
interest will be provided. The list will include the characteristics of
the products according to their availability, e.g., products that can - Products that require an ETL process can be selected and
be accessed through OGC interoperability protocols are available launched.
for immediate viewing, while products that are not will require
selection for an ETL process.
35 ETLs metocean data FUN – Functional (mix) Should have Metocean products that cannot be consumed through OGC - Sensors about the ETL process are exposed and can be consumed
interoperability protocols (WMS, WCS) will be Extracted by EMSA’s NAGIOS
Transformed, and Loaded (ETL).
Metocean data, real-time (buoys and HF Radar), and forecasts
from different data providers (e.g. Copernicus, ECMWF, NOAA,
EMODnet) are extracted, transformed, and loaded into the system.

36 Metocean Service from ETLs products TEC - Technical Should have The system will provide standard interoperability protocols (OGC - Interoperability protocols for accessing ETL products are exposed
compliant: WMS, WMS) to access metocean data products and accessible
Extracted Transformed, and Loaded.
37 Time for metocean data download PER - Performance (Non- Must have The area of work must be limited according to the performance - Product download does not exceed 3 hours
Functional) required. The maximum time to download the metocean data will
be 3 hours.

PROPRIETARY DATABASES
38 Emergency database section FUN - Functional Must have The Web app will provide a section dedicated to emergency data - The Web app provides a section to manage the oil spill database
management. The emergency data section will provide the according to user privileges.
roles/privileges defined in req.6.

39 Emergency database service TEC - Technical Must have Through interoperability protocols (e.g. API) this requirement - The Emergency properties can be managed via interoperability
allows users to manage: protocols (e.g. API) according to user privileges.
 1. Emergency general properties (name, domain, initial date and
time, initial point/area…) - The Oil spill polygon(s) layers can be managed via interoperability
2. GIS vectorial layers of the oil spill polygon(s) defining the protocols (e.g. API) according to user privileges.
geometry of the oil slick(s) and its properties.
3. OSM simulations (setup and results). - The OSM simulations can be managed via interoperability
4. RS simulations (setup and results). protocols (e.g. API) according to user privileges.

- The RS simulations can be managed via interoperability protocols

(e.g. API) according to user privileges.

- All protocols are able to restrict access based on user privileges

(CRUD) defined by the user role.

40 Oil database section FUN - Functional Must have The Web app will provide a section dedicated to oil database - The Web app provides a section to manage the oil spill database
management. The oil spill data section will provide the according to user privileges.
roles/privileges defined in req.6.

41 Oil database service TEC - Technical Must have The Oil spill data service will facilitate the data management via - The oil spill database can be managed via interoperability
interoperability protocols (e.g. via API). The services will be protocols (e.g. API) according to user privileges (human and
accessible to both human and system users. system).

- Minimum variables needed to be stored are defined in Annex 1.

42 Resource & equipment database FUN – Functional Must have The Web app will provide a section dedicated to resource & - The Web app provides a section to manage the resource &
section equipment data management. The resource & equipment data equipment database according to user privileges.
section will provide the roles/privileges defined in req.6.

43 Resource & equipment database TEC - Technical Must have The Resources & equipment data service will facilitate the data - The resource & equipment database can be managed via
service management via interoperability protocols (e.g., via API). The interoperability protocols (e.g., API) according to user privileges
services will be accessible to both human and system users. (human and system).

ACCESIBILITY AND MONITORING

44 Monitor TEC - Technical Must have System processes will expose sensors (e.g., system metrics, service - Nagios can access and integrate the exposed sensors.
state, process state, file system usage, etc.) for the EMSA’s monitor
system. The sensors must be compliant with Nagios
interoperability agent or cloud equivalent tools.
45 Progressive Web app TEC - Technical Should have The Web app will be compliant with mobile devices. The Web app - The Web app is a Progressive Web App (PWA) that can be used
should be an all-in-one solution for a site/app to be delivered on mobile devices
across all devices without the hassle of app-store distribution.
46 Mobile device functionalities FUN - Functional Should have The Application should reduce the functionalities available when - In a mobile device the System provides lighter functionalities
detecting a mobile device using the system. The application will (read and simulate)
provide access only for reading and simulating.
- The App interface is responsive and adapts to mobile devices