Briefing to Kenai Peninsula Borough February 19, 2013

1. Briefing to Kenai Peninsula Borough February 19, 2013

2. What is a Risk Assessment? • Study Results • Risk Reduction Options • Questions?

3. What is a Risk Assessment? • What can go wrong?

4. What is a Risk Assessment? • How likely is it?

5. What is a Risk Assessment? • What are the impacts?

6. What is a Risk Assessment? • Can the risk be reduced or the impact mitigated?

7. Project Scope Substances • Oil • Cargo, Crude Oil or Refined Product • Fuel, Bunkers

8. Project Scope Vessel Types • Containerships • Bulk carriers • Gas carriers • Car carriers • Cruise ships and Ferries • Crude oil tankers • Product tankers • Tank barges and tugs • Cargo barges and tugs • Chemical carriers • Tugs • Offshore Supply Vessels • Mobile Drill Rigs • Government Vessels

9. Project Scope Accident Types • Collisions • Allisions • Powered Groundings • Drift Groundings • Foundering • Structural Failures • Mooring Failures • Fires

10. Project Scope Geographic Region

11. Organization Management Team • Mike Munger, CIRCAC • Steve Russell, ADEC • Captain Paul Mehler, USCG Project Managers • Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC.

12. Organization Advisory Panel • Fisheries • Local Government • Mariner, Pilot • Mariner, Salvor • Mariner, Containerships • Mariner, Tug and Barge • Mariner, Tank Ship • Mariner, General • Non-Governmental Org. • Resource Manager • Subsistence Users

13. Tasks Completed • Vessel Traffic Study • Baseline Accident and Spill Study • Consequence Analysis Study

14. Vessel Traffic Study Objectives • Characterize Vessel Traffic Utilizing Cook Inlet in 2010 Base Year (≥ 300 Gross Tons), • Predict Vessel Traffic Until 2019

15. Vessel Traffic Study Findings • 480 ship port calls • 80% of the calls were made by 15 ships • 218 million gallons of persistent oil and 9 million gallons of non-persistent oil were moved on 83 tank ship voyages to or from the Nikiski and Drift River terminals

16. Vessel Traffic Study Findings • 36% of all persistent oil moved was fuel oil on dry cargo ships calling at Anchorage • 102 oil barge transits moved 366 million gallons of nonpersistent oil; the greatest amount of oil moved by a single vessel type

18. Vessel Traffic Study • AMHS ferries 23% • Horizon Lines container ships 22% • TOTE Ro-Ro cargo ships 22% • Crude oil tank ships 15.5% • Refined product tank ships 4% • Bulk carriers 4% • Gas carriers 2.5% • Cruise ships 3% • Fish industry 1%

19. 45 450 million gallons of persistent oil were move in 2010

20. 566 million gallons of non-persistent oil was moved in 2010

22. Spill Baseline & Causality Study Objectives Studied Historical Incidents and Vessel Traffic to Define: • Baseline (2010-2014) and; • Projected (2015- 2020) annual spill rate Scenario Development

23. Spill Baseline & Causality Study • Analyzed vessel casualty/spill incidents • Analyzed casualty/spill causes • Analyzed potential spill volumes • Determined most likely scenarios

24. Spill Rates • Vessel Types • Tank Ships • Tank Barges • Non-Tank/Non-workboat vessels (Cargo, Cruise ship) • Highest forecasted spill rate of 1.3 per year • Workboats (OSV, Towboat/Tugboat) • Highest baseline spill rate of 0.96 per year • Sum of the four vessel types is 3.9 spills per year

25. Scenarios • Defined for 2,112 unique combinations of vessel types and spill factor subcategories. • Majority of scenarios have low to very low relative risk level. • Tank ships have lowest baseline spill rate, but have the most risk from an oil spill.

26. Consequence Analysis • Workshop was held in Anchorage Oct 30 & 31

27. Consequence Analysis • Based on Expert Judgment • Considered 7 spill scenarios • Characterized likely impacts

28. Consequence Analysis Environmental • Habitat • Fish • Birds • Mammals Impacts Considered Socioeconomic • Subsistence • Commercial Fishing • Recreation and Tourism • General Commerce • Oil Industry Operations

29. Consequence Analysis • Both persistent and non-persistent oil spill scenarios were evaluated • The conclusion were that even moderate size spills (~100 bbl) can have significant impacts • Over 40 people attended the Workshop • Workshop report was posted for public review and is being finalized.

30. Risk Reduction Options Indentify Potential Risk Reduction Options

31. Risk Reduction Options • Some potential Risk Reduction Options have already been identified • We want to consider the broadest array of options, so we are asking anyone with a idea to submit it for consideration

32. Risk Reduction Options • The Advisory Panel will meet Friday February 22nd to consider Risk Reductions Options • The most promising ones will be evaluated for possible recommendation for implementation by the Advisory Panel

33. Risk Reduction Options • The evaluation process will consider • Estimating costs and benefits • Evaluating ease of implementation • Considering Un-intended consequences • Based on these evaluations the Advisory Panel will prioritize and make final recommendations in their Final Report

34. www.cookinletriskassessment.com

35. Questions?