Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 133
-
Appendix B
Workshop on Modeling in Physical Oceanography
The Physical Oceanography Panel convened a workshop in Seattle on August 5-6, 1987 to
assess the current state of modeling for MMS, to compare these efforts to other state-of-the-art
physical oceanographic models, and to recommend future modeling developments for MMS. The
attendees, listed below, were MMS-funded modelers and outside experts (in addition to the panel
members).
The panel is very grateful to these experts for their time and thoughtful discussions. The
panel found the discussions and the workshop recommendations useful in the preparation of its
report and in the development of its own recommendations.
Physical Oceanography Panel
Workshop on Oil-Spill Modeling
August 5-6, 1987
Participants
Kenneth Brink, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Jerry Gait, Hazardous Materials Response Branch, Seattle
H. James Herring, Dynalysis Inc., Princeton
Zygmunt Kowalik, University of Alaska-Fairbanks
Jan Leendertse, RAND, Santa Monica
David Liu, RAND, Santa Monica
Mark Luther, Florida State University, Tallahassee
Akira Okubo, State Univerity of New York (SUNY), Stony Brook
Robert Pritchard,-Icecasting, Inc., Seattle
Mark Reed, ASA Inc., Narragansett
Allan Robinson, Harvard University, Cambridge
Robert Smith, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Allen Wallcraft, Naval Ocean Research and Development Activity, NSTL Station
(Bay St. Louis)
Dong-Ping Wang, SUNY, Stony Brook
Workshop Recommendations
Oil-spill motion:
The MMS procedure for analysis of oil-spill risks used in the lower 48 states has four
parts:
133
OCR for page 134
134
.
.
2)
APPENDIX B
Estimation of spill probability, based on historical records.
Monte-Carlo simulation of trajectories (~500 spills per season, 30-day trajectories). This
step uses water motions predicted form a numerical model and a separate simulation of
winds, based on 3-hour transition probabilities and velocities usually from shore stations.
The contribution from the wind is calculated at 3.5% of the wind with a variable drift
angle to the right of the wind. This is added to the model's surface currents.
The probability of hitting various "environmentally sensitive" areas is calculated from
these trajectories.
The conditional impact probability for a particular resource is then the spill probability
times the hit probability.
In Alaska, the procedure has been different: more detailed consideration of the surface layer was
made and trajectory calculations were carried out in conjunction with the circulation modeling.
The workshop focused primarily upon the numerical mode! predictions of water motion;
however, the participants did also make more general recommendations about oil motion
calculations.
1) The calculations of oil-spill movement should be made consistent with the modeling of
water motion. The current MMS practice of using wind patterns that are not related to
the winds driving the water motions may lead to substantial errors in estimating the oil
motion. We recommend that the calculations of oil movement be made as a part of the
model run. Models may have difficulty calculating Lagrangian trajectories; we suggest
that it may be possible to calculate the probability distribution for oil as an alternative to
trajectory modeling. It also seems reasonable to include weathering/fate calculations at
the same time.
The meteorological effort needs to be more thorough. Representing wind changes by
transition-probability matrices does not yield accurate temporal correlations. In addition,
the spatial structure is not at all represented. Simulated winds, perhaps from an LFM
(limited fine mesh model) with appropriate interpolation to even smaller scales, should be
used whenever possible. The 3.5% rule needs more analysis or should be replaced by
more accurate surface-layer models.
3) Extreme events and statistics must be considered. In any environmental problem, even
extremely small impact probabilities may be important if an important resource is
affected. The MMS procedure is probably least accurate at low levels of probability,
right where the concern may be greatest. More consideration needs to be given to the
extreme event e.g., hurricanes-that may lead both to higher spill probability and more
rapid water and oil motion.
Models:
Realistic, applied modeling of ocean dynamics is a rapidly evolving field. In the view of
the workshop participants, there are a number of state-of-the-art models for calculating water
flows that have been made available to MMS by their contractors. However, participants
recommended:
4) The ice modeling has not been state-of-the-art; more modern models include calculations
of thickness distribution and use of an elastic-plastic or viscous-plastic constitutive
relationship with the strength calculated from an energy balance statement. Some
participants felt that such models may be more sophisticated than required for estimating
oil-spill motion.
OCR for page 135
WORKSHOP ON MODELING IN PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
5)
6)
7)
135
Other physics must be assessed. A number of potentially important physical processes are
not included in these models surface fronts and convergences, Stokes' drift, Langmuir
cells, and other near-surface processes. It is not known how these factors might affect oil
movement. In each region, MMS needs to take a careful scientific look at both modeling
and data-gathering efforts to ensure that the work is matched to the kinematics and scales
of the transport processes and to assess the necessity for including other processes.
Sensitivity analyses should be carried out for all modeling work. There is essentially no
information on the sensitivity of the model results or, even more seriously, of the final
trajectories to the initial conditions, fluid and ice boundary conditions, forcing functions,
etc. Without some understanding of the factors and processes that limit the
oil-spill-motion calculation, it is difficult to either assess or improve the modeling.
Model intercomparison and verification cannot be neglected. In addition to better
validation against data (discussed below), the group suggested more model-to-model
comparisons, independent critiques, and more efforts on quality control.
Relationship to field work:
The workshop participants agreed that the relationship between MMS-funded field work
and modeling activity is insufficient and does not reflect state-of-the-art practice.
S) Verification against data must be much more thorough. A new program should be
initiated to perform systematic model evaluation and verification against data not only for
currents but also the trajectories/probability distributions themselves.
9)
10)
Better cooperation between observers and modelers is essential in planning work in new
regions. Physical oceanographers engaged in field work and modeling should work
together closely to design observational and numerical experiments so that necessary and
sufficient initial, boundary, and updating data, as well as critical data sets for calibration
and verification, are all obtained.
Data-assimilation techniques should be explored. In future MMS studies, efficient
regional simulations may best be carried out by employing the methodology of data
assimilation, which melds fields calculated from models and from data.
OCR for page 136
Representative terms from entire chapter:
oil motion
