4
Needs and Planning Game Actions
Each of the following four subsections addresses one of the four Needs and Planning Game stakeholder groups:
- Science in Action (e.g., academics, bench and applied scientists)
- Engineering and Technology (e.g., energy production specialists, industry representatives, engineers)
- Community Engagement (e.g., local and nonprofit organizations, outreach and public sector professionals, community representatives)
- Regulation and Best Practices (e.g., government representatives, industry compliance and regulatory subject-matter experts)
In addition to the participants, each Needs and Planning Game included one or two members from the Offshore Situation Room (OSR) planning committee.1 On Day 3 of the event, following the conclusion of the second Needs and Planning Game, these committee members provided a brief to all participants about the discussions and priorities of their stakeholder groups. The information they reported forms the basis for the initial overview provided in each subsection.
___________________
1 A planning committee was appointed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to plan OSR. Information on the planning committee is available in Appendix C.
In addition to the overview, each subsection provides a table listing the highest-priority actions, as ranked by the Needs and Planning Game voting process.2 As noted earlier, participants in each stakeholder group understood that they were free to identify actions, irrespective of who would be responsible for implementing the action. Groups were not tasked with determining which entities might be responsible for implementing any of the actions they identified. Rather, the focus of the Needs and Planning Game was to generate ideas of potentially helpful actions to take and provide some sense of priorities among these ideas.
SCIENCE IN ACTION
The Science in Action stakeholder group identified 48 actions. In his report out to the OSR participants on Day 3, OSR planning committee member Francis Wiese (Stantec) summarized the participants’ discussions and grouped these actions into the following six categories:
- Adaptive policy focused on continuous improvement. According to Wiese, the group acknowledged changes in the tools now available to assess and monitor offshore operations and automation. As a result, existing policies need to be updated.
- Science and innovation. This included adaptive sampling for monitoring and assessment. Wiese stated that the group also discussed the need for research facilities—particularly for deep water—to improve scientific understanding through controlled experiments.
- Collaboration. Several actions addressed collaboration, co-production, public–private partnerships, and inclusion of local and traditional knowledge. Wiese noted recognition within the group of the need for continued and sustained communication that includes everyone.
- Inclusion of the human dimension. According to Wiese, rather than just thinking about the technology or science, the reason for caring is the human dimension—either because we are indirectly affected as recipients and users of the ecosystem or because we are
___________________
2 For more details about the process, see “Offshore Situation Room Player Instructions.” The instructions can be found at https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/06-15-2021/offshore-situation-room-enhancing-resilience-to-offshore-oil-disasters-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.
- Collaboration about communication. Discussion about transparency of information and data focused on before, during, and after an event. Communication needs to be better, more integrated, and more persistent, and it also needs to occur between all of the different stakeholder groups and with the public.
- Planning. Wiese specifically referenced the need for more planning, integration, goal setting, and systems thinking to overcome existing barriers and silos and ensure buy-in from everyone.
directly affected and our livelihoods or even lives are threatened.
From the 48 actions identified, the Science in Action stakeholder group prioritized a subset of 12 actions. Table 4-1 lists these high-priority actions, ranked according to participant votes.
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
The Engineering and Technology stakeholder group identified 12 actions arising from their discussions at OSR. Of these, only eight actions received participant votes during the prioritization portion of the Needs and Planning Game. Table 4-2 lists these eight actions, ranked according to participant votes. Unlike other stakeholder groups, participants in the Engineering and Technology group did not identify any new actions on Day 3 (the second iteration of the Needs and Planning Game). Richard Sears (Stanford University), the chair of the OSR planning committee participating in the group, started his summary of the discussions by noting that the group revisited the broader ideas reflected in the original action statements coming out of Day 2 and reintroduced some of the specifics that formed the basis for these broader ideas.
Reflecting on the group discussions, Sears pointed to the recurring idea that more than one party would need to act in order to implement some of the actions. As a result, questions arose within the group about how to incentivize different groups to act together. In particular, Sears pointed to some of the underlying difficulties in getting new and novel technologies developed and into use when they do not have an obvious commercial benefit. Finally, Sears noted that two different kinds of conversations were occurring in the group, which are reflected in its list of actions: (1) high-level strategic discussions that dealt with addressing communication issues between different stakeholders and (2) tactical conversations about how
TABLE 4-1 Highest-Priority Actions Identified in the Science in Action Stakeholder Group
Rank | Action |
---|---|
1 | Look at ways to mitigate the risk from abandoned and legacy infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico: abandoned pipelines, abandoned wells, decommissioned or abandoned rigs and platforms, etc. |
2 | Revisit the recommendations of the 2011 Oil Spill Commission Report;a commit to take action based on Oil in the Sea Version IV scorecard and recommendations yet to be implementedb |
3 | Develop a science-based, adaptive protocol for the use of dispersants |
4 (tie) | Better integrate human dimension in response decision making |
4 (tie) | Establish/sustain (and mandate by law or regulation) a uniform biological baseline for the surface and onshore areas in the Gulf of Mexico (including migratory species and contaminants) |
6 (tie) | Increase public–private partnerships for more joint research with academia, the private sector, and government |
6 (tie) | Improve the ability to forecast extreme weather (near and long term) as it relates to a range of influencing factors (e.g., rising water temperature); for example, a targeted focus on Gulf-wide compound flooding and associated impacts |
6 (tie) | Reauthorize and update the Oil Pollution Act of 1990; update governance of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to provide greater support for joint research |
9 | Expand public–private partnerships to establish and sustain experimentation capacity and capabilities; consider government incentives to develop shared, equitable governance |
10 (tie) | Provide incentive funds for building collaboration/applying co-production model pre-incident via existing organizations/mechanisms |
10 (tie) | Conduct examination of impacts and recovery outcomes from historical spills (e.g., tanker sinkings in World War II in the Gulf and the Ixtoc oil spillc) |
10 (tie) | Develop a means for enhancing the dynamic risk-assessment culture and tools in the industry, including identifying operational changes and reevaluating the risks based on those changes |
a Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. (January 10, 2011). Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling—Report to the President (BP Oil Spill Commission Report). [Government]. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.
b For more information about the study, see https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/oil-in-the-sea-iv-inputs-fates-and-effects.
c Soto, L. A., A. V. Botello, S. Licea-Durán, M. L. Lizárraga-Partida, and A. Yáñez-Arancibia. 2014. The environmental legacy of the Ixtoc-I oil spill in Campeche Sound, southwestern Gulf of Mexico. Frontiers in Marine Science 1:57. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2014.00057.
TABLE 4-2 Highest-Priority Actions Identified in the Engineering and Technology Stakeholder Group
Rank | Action |
---|---|
1 | Incentivize the use of best available proven technology and encourage funding of other emerging technologies |
2 (tie) | Integrate satellite and other surveillance technology in monitoring oil spills |
2 (tie) | Utilize regulatory action to implement best available proven technologies—blowout preventer, dynamic positioning system, drilling system |
2 (tie) | Improve understanding and near-real-time telemetry of deepwater/littoral environmental resources, conditions, and sensitivities to support response prioritization |
5 | Address the negative public perception of dispersant use |
6 (tie) | Implement competency assurance (i.e., certification, licensing) for drilling personnel to achieve a higher level of competence among operators |
6 (tie) | Improve oil spill plume modeling, especially far-field effects |
6 (tie) | Promote and incentivize a stronger safety culture |
technologies would enable better resource deployment, response, and situational awareness.
Similar to other stakeholder groups, the Engineering and Technology group performed a revote on their final set of revised action statements on Day 3. In comparing the prioritization between Days 2 and 3, Sears noted the following:
Our collective sense of priorities didn’t change that much. Initially, the priorities were around the application of technology, or integrating technologies, and … using technology to make information more readily available to people that had to act at some point…. That didn’t change. Those kinds of actions stayed at near the top of the list and remained the high-priority things.
What did change, according to Sears, was that the exercise of adding more detail back into the actions on Day 3 did two things: (1) it created more focus on prevention and the technologies to enable that, and (2) it increased the likely level of effort required to implement the action (particularly for the actions at the top of the list).
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The Community Engagement stakeholder group identified 33 actions. Patrick Barnes (BFA Environmental and Limitless Vistas), one of two OSR planning committee members participating in this group, began his Day 3 summary of the discussions by drawing connections that he observed between gameplay and reality. For example, Barnes commented on the fairly realistic representation within the games of the failure to sufficiently reflect the community’s value and its needs. The latter was reflected in actions addressing mental health concerns. Similarly, he noted the somewhat realistic absence of incentives in the Response Game to train members of the community (i.e., the Community team). Along these lines, he commented on the need to (1) have better trained and pre-positioned resources in the community; (2) explore existing examples where community resources are pre-positioned, pre-trained, and certified to support oil spill disasters; and (3) incentivize participation from community representatives in existing drills.
More broadly, Barnes commented on how lack of funding in communities prevents their participation in networking and collaboration events. Similarly, he pointed to how under-resourcing contributed to challenges with outreach, including identifying community representatives. To address these issues, he noted that discussions within the group looked at ways to add capacity and provide funding to community organizations.
Barnes concluded his briefing by posing the question, “How do we better incorporate environmental justice issues in oil spill response?” He noted that because of the urgency associated with emergencies and the need to do something quickly, things happen to communities, and they do not have a voice. One of the major tenets of environmental justice is that the community must have a voice.
Afterward, Monica Wilson (Florida Sea Grant), the other OSR planning committee member participating in the Community Engagement stakeholder group, recounted several ideas raised by the group that focused on education (see Table 4-3) and reviewed the remaining, unaddressed high-priority actions.
Table 4-3 lists the highest-priority actions—ranked according to participant votes—that the Community Engagement stakeholder group identified.
TABLE 4-3 Highest-Priority Actions Identified in the Community Engagement Stakeholder Group
Rank | Action |
---|---|
1 | Create funding opportunities to encourage translation of science and empowerment of community-based organizations, with the community as the lead |
2 | Encourage networking and collaboration across all oil spill management stakeholders, as well as regional networking and collaboration |
3 (tie) | Introduce education about oil spills into school curricula; teach oil spill science, including social science |
3 (tie) | Hold a major annual information-sharing event with community representatives |
5 | Engage all educational and training development programs, both traditional and nontraditional, in disaster preparedness, response, and managementa |
6 (tie) | Work directly with local colleges—minority-serving institutions, historically Black colleges and universities, etc.—to ensure oil spill and social science is a critical part of the curriculum |
6 (tie) | Create multilingual public awareness campaigns about oil spill impacts—raising awareness of impacts not only on the environment but also on communities, culture, mental health, etc. |
6 (tie) | Establish dedicated counseling and mental health services for children and youth post-disaster |
9 (tie) | Provide support for understanding and accessing post-spill compensation (claims) processes |
9 (tie) | Incorporate local community knowledge into the evaluation and decision-making process |
11 (tie) | Work directly with the conservation corps to broaden institutional engagement of young people in their formative years |
11 (tie) | Because large spills are infrequent, the public engagement should be focused on all hazards |
a One participant identified the Climb Community Development Corporation (Climb CDC) in Gulfport, Mississippi, as a model that could be duplicated.
REGULATION AND BEST PRACTICES
The Regulation and Best Practices stakeholder group identified 21 actions. Charlie Williams (Independent Consultant and Center for Offshore Safety, retired), the OSR planning committee member participating in the group, began his summary of the discussions by highlighting frequently raised items of discussion, including the following:
- Strategic analysis and joint planning, in which the strategic analysis was meant to go beyond “thinking about everything as our own individual issues,” and the joint planning was intended for all of the stakeholders and groups
- Communication and collaboration in the context of collecting data, particularly baseline data
- Modernizing and upgrading regulations
- Better communicating progress on what has been done, what has changed, and what has been accomplished in the past 10 years
In addition, Williams reviewed each of the top-voted actions listed in Table 4-4.
TABLE 4-4 Highest-Priority Actions Identified in the Regulation and Best Practices Stakeholder Group
Rank | Action |
---|---|
1 | Develop a strategic analysis of threats (e.g., cybersecurity, foreign and domestic threats) for issues ranging from nuisance incidents to “black swan”–type events; then prepare recommended practices and a roadmap of activities for mitigation; identify and engage cybersecurity experts during preparedness and response to crises |
2 | Identify, refine, and develop baseline data for resources at risk (e.g., animals, habitats, sediments in marine and coastal systems) and how the different resources interact in the ecosystem; ensure adequate funding for such research |
3 | Revise regulations to allow experimental spills for research and development of new tools, dispersants, equipment, and techniques |
4 (tie) | Review structure of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and revise/update aspects associated with funds to respond to an oil spill—for example, access to the emergency fund component of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, limits of liability, cap for resource damages, etc. (extremely high level of effort) |
4 (tie) | Encourage training for all stakeholders in the Gulf of Mexico on oil spill emergency preparedness and response (e.g., operators, contractors, U.S. Coast Guard, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, state/local agencies, community partners) |
6 | Ensure that all communities, including disadvantaged communities, are engaged in all steps of the process as stakeholders |
7 (tie) | Develop infrastructure to facilitate ease of communication between stakeholders (e.g., engagement before an accident happens); enhance and improve existing forums that encourage communication and coordination |
7 (tie) | Exercise the transitions from response to damage assessment and impact, restoration, and recovery, which are not often addressed in response-focused exercises |
9 (tie) | Develop and maintain a roster of experts on oil-field equipment, spill response, natural resources, etc., who are available to deploy when called upon to aid and respond to a crisis |
9 (tie) | Reexamine processes and regulations to address oil spills in open water in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan: planning and preparedness regulations, subpart D, subpart E |
11 (tie) | Review improvements to offshore safety and environmental protection available from the American Petroleum Institute, government regulators, etc. to inform future work |
11 (tie) | Develop effective approaches to sharing data, including with the public |
This page intentionally left blank.