Keywords: Computer-Assisted Learning, ecosystems, educa-
tion, emergency planning, environmental im-
Use of computer simulation in oil
response training
C.H. Peabody and R.H. Goodman
Esso Resources Canada Limited
339-50 Avenue S.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2G 2B3
Canada
C.H. PEABODY has worked with Esso Resources Canada Limited for
two years in the Production Research Division, concentrating on oil
spill research project design and management. She has been in-
strumental in developing and introducing computer-based training
into oil spill training programs.
R.H. GOODMAN has been an environmental advisor with Esso
Resources Canada Limited, Production Research Division, for five
years. He is primarily responsible for the design and implementation
of the oil spill research program for Esso. His other areas of expertise
include remote sensing, oceanography, and meteorology.
ABSTRACT
Response to recent oil spill incidents has shown the need for
augmenting the training of oil spill response teams. At the spill
site, the On-Scene Commander attempts to correlate all the
available information for prompt implementation of the op-
timum clean-up strategy.
A newtechnique using Computer-Assisted Learning has been
developed for the training of On-Scene commanders, which
dramatically simulates the time pressures involved in an oil spill.
The Computer-Assisted Learning system will complement ac-
tual hands-on training field exercises.
A forty-eight hour scenario is simulated in four hours of actual
time, during which the On-Scene Commander responds to the
spill situation by requesting weather information, spill trajec-
tories, deploying booms and skimmers, and solving other prob-
lems in a time-pressured situation. All commands are input
through a touch-sensitive screen, eliminating problems ex-
perienced by users unfamiliar with a keyboard.
At the end of the simulated response, data is provided on the
amount of oil recovered, the amount of shoreline oiled, and
the totalcost of the cleanup. The trainee can then evaluate his
actions as recorded by the computer throughout the simula-
tion and as presented to him in the form of graphs at the end
of the simulation.
The Computer-Assisted Learning program has proven to be a
useful adjunct to our usual training program; it provides the On-
Scene Commander trainee the opportunity to experience the
time pressures and decision-making associated with an oil spill.
Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com by Raluca Maria Aileni on August 7, 2016
pact, oil spills, training
spill
USE OF COMPUTER SIMULATION
IN OIL SPILL RESPONSE TRAINING
The disaster business, if one may call it that, is predicated on
reaction to events which most people expect will never happen,
at least to them. Since major disasters are rare, it is difficult to
train personnel in response
techniques through on-the-job ex-
perience. Consequently, training programs generally use a sce-
nario approach where a hypothetical incident has occurred.
These programs are conducted as paper studies, although prac-
ticing such tasks as first aid, fire fighting, or rescue may be a
component of field training.’ As it is costly to undertake a
major exercise, most training depends on reviewing past in-
cidents, where the strong and weak points of such situations
are identified. Any improvements in that response are then
identified and implemented. Major disasters-man-made or
natural-require very complex logistic operations and quick
decision-making on the part of those in command. The pur-
pose of disaster training is to improve the response capability
in handling an emergency and minimizing environmental ef-
fects, in hopes of reducing the damage to life and property.
in the oil
industry, major potential disasters include an oil well
blowout, a tanker incident, or pipeline failure,4 or any acci-
dent that releases oil into the marine environment. An oil spill
has the potential to cause significant environmental and prop-
erty damage; therefore, it is important that mitigation measures
be quickly undertaken. This involves decision-making and a
strategy to respond.
The decision-making and strategy for an oil spill response are
the responsibility of a designated On-Scene Commander (OSC)
who has been selected from within an oil company (Figure 1).
He is in charge of several groups of people, all of whom have
been trained in oil spill response. This staff is kept informed
about new techniques in oil spill technology through slide-tape
shows, lecture tours, and attendance at specialist conferences
and seminars. None of these activities adequately prepares the
manager of an oil spill response and his field staff for the time
pressures and rapid decision-making characteristic of a real
incident.1> To supplement existing training programs, Esso
175
 evaluate his skills in oil spill response, this information is pre-
sented to the trainee in the form of graphs at the end of the
simulation.
In order to demonstrate the use of Computer-Assisted Learn-
ing inOn-Scene Commander training, two scenarios have been
developed.’ The first simulates a blowout in a fast-flowing
river where rapid response is essential. The second scenario
involves a major offshore incident in the open ocean where
long-term strategic planning is more critical.
The river situation is based on the oil field expansion that Esso
Resources Canada Limited is undertaking at Norman Wells on
the Mackenzie River in the Northwest Territories’ (Figure 2).
The field is being expanded by drilling production wells from
artificial islands in the middle of the river. The wells are con-
nected to a processing plant on the mainland by underwater,
buried pipelines (Figure 3). A continuous oil spill from one of
the artificial islands in the river is simulated. One problem com-
plicating this type of oil spill response is the river’s fast flow
rate, while the variability of the weather, and the fact that
booms will not contain oil in water with speeds greater than
0.5 metres per second, present further difficulties. The On-
Scene Commander must make rapid decisions in terms of the
allocation of manpower and resources which will optimize the

Figure 1. An oil spill response organization (source: Norman Wells Con-

tingency Plan, Esso Resources).

Resources Canada Limited, in conjunction with several Cana-

dian oil companies, the Petroleum Association for the Conser-
vation of the Canadian Environment (PACE), and the Canadian
Federal Department of the Environment, has developed a pro-
gram for training On-Scene Commanders using computer-based
techniques.
The On-Scene Commander has overall charge of oil spill
response. He is required to make decisions concerning the
allocation of manpower and equipment in order to prevent or
restrict the spreading of the oil. He must attempt to reduce the
potential impact on environmentally or socially sensitive areas.
Basic response options involve open water or shoreline Figure 2. Northwest Territories, Canada: site of river simulation.

cleanup, orboth. Each of these response options triggers more

decisions such as how many men to hire, how many boats are
needed, who is responsible for press releases, food and hous-
ing logistics, and a myriad of other details.
Environmentally sensitive areas create a special problem since
they are critical to the preservation of the local ecology and
are often breeding zones for many marine creatures. Aestheti-
cally sensitive areas such as docks or marinas may not be bio-
logically critical, but they may be perceived by the public to
be important areas. Many tradeoffs exist and difficult decisions
are required. While some of the operational details may be
delegated to other members of the response team, the final
responsibility for the oil spill cleanup is that of the On-Scene
Commander.
The Computer-Assisted Learning training program provides a
new type of training which emphasizes more opportunity to
practice response strategies and evaluate the trainee’s problem-
solving skills.’ As the oil spill scenarios in the computer
simulation are randomly generated, each situation requires a
different response strategy by the trainee. This is beneficial to
the learning process, as many different responses can be prac-
ticed in a short period of time. The computer records each time
the trainee initiates a response action, and scores him on his
ability to collect oil in a cost-effective manner with minimal Figure 3. Norman Wells: site of oilfield expansion and river scenario
oil impact to the shoreline. To further enable the trainee to (source: Norman Wells Contingency Plan, Esso Resources).

176

Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com by Raluca Maria Aileni on August 7, 2016

 Figure 4. Offshore Canada. Site of ocean scenario.

spill cleanup and minimize environmental damage. Response
must be prompt, yet cost-effective.
The second scenario is situated offshore of Eastern Canada in
a potential production areas (Figure 4). It involves a tanker in-
cident and a onetime release of oil. Effort must be taken to
discover where the oil spill is, in what direction it is moving,
and how best to employ the necessary equipment (Figure 5),
as response can be attempted either in the open ocean or along
the shoreline. If shoreline containment is selected, the area of
oil impact must be predetermined by trajectory modelling and
equipment mobilized to protect the environmentally-sensitive
As much as possible, information is presented in graphic form.
Most response actions are initiated by means of a touch panel
on the screen. This permits the trainees to use the simulation
more easily (Figure 7). Telephone numbers are input via the
keyboard; as in a real spill situation, the OSC calls his crew,
the airport, the weather office, and so on, to begin response
operations. Messages from simulated members of the response
team appear in alphanumeric form on the bottom of the display.
A contingency plan is available for reference and provides a
list of possible response options. This plan would normally be
used in an oil spill response operation.
,

marsh area. The On-Scene Commander responds to unexpected

changes in weather conditions, identifies potential problems,
and initiates protective measures and recovery techniques. His
goal is a successful oil spill response.
Throughout both scenarios, the trainee is faced with random
&dquo;glitches,&dquo; or problems, much the same as an On-Scene Com-
mander might encounter at a spill site. He may choose to in-
vestigate or ignore any request; however, this decision can pro-
duce later consequences. For example, should he choose to
ignore a request, a future press conference will extend for an
additional hour, during which time his deputy (the computer)
takes over the cleanup. Other concerns include local officials
demanding overflights, equipment breakdowns, weather prob-
lems, and the sitings of oiled wildlife. All &dquo;glitches&dquo; have con-
sequences, and must be dealt with in a time-pressured situa-
tion. Because these problems are randomly generated, no two
simulations are alike.
Computer-generated maps display the movement of the oil slick
and response operations. In the river simulation, a larger scale
representing 100 km x 100 km is useful for gaining a general
overview of the situation. A smaller scale map is used as a
&dquo;zoom&dquo; option, enlarging a portion of the original map (Figure 6).
It is at this smaller scale that the response options are manipu-
lated. In the ocean scenario, only one map scale, a 50 km x 50
km grid showing the coastline and the spill site, is presented. Figure 5. Offshore spill simulation location map (source: Gilfillan et al.).

177

Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com by Raluca Maria Aileni on August 7, 2016

 Figure 6. Norman Wells simulation maps (source: Gilfillan et al ).

Figure 7. Simulated input techniques (source: Gilfillan et al.).

One of the advantages of Computer-Assisted Learning is the

ability to compress time.s An entire 48-hour simulation can
be completed within four hours’ real time, while still providing
a realistic representation of an oil spill response. Typical time

lags are incorporated into the simulation; for example, the

calculation of an oil spill trajectory requires a start-up time of
two hours, while updates can be generated promptly. These
time lags assist intraining the OSC for better organization of
his time.

The purpose of these scenarios is to train On-Scene Com-

manders to respond rapidly to the time pressures associated
with an oil spill situation. Different response strategies can be
practiced which, in turn, lead to a learning situation.’ The
computer simply operates the simulation, providing no
prompts; response decisions must come from the trainee.

Throughout the simulation, the computer records each activ-

ity the trainee performs, and the time of the activity. Scoring
is on the basis of the amount of oil recovered, the amount of
shoreline oiled, and the cost of the cleanup operation (Figure
8). Figure 9 provides an example of the information the com-
puter program records for use in the evaluation of the oil spill
response. The trainee reviews these graphs and is able to deter-
mine how he might better his response strategy in the future. Figure 8. Scoring parameters (source: Gilfillan et al.).

178

Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com by Raluca Maria Aileni on August 7, 2016

 179

Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com by Raluca Maria Aileni on August 7, 2016

Training can be conducted either in a classroom situation or
on an individualized basis.’ A series of learning activities to
familiarize the trainee with the computer terminal precedes the
actual simulation. One day of training is sufficient, although
trainees are encouraged to practice the simulations as often
as they wish. The use of a self-contained, portable terminal pro-
vides training opportunities or refresher courses to remote loca-
tions. This is cost-effective, as opposed to conventional train-
ing techniques which require assembling both the trainees and
instructor in a central location. It is important to note that the
Computer-Assisted Learning program will be a useful addition
to present training programs, and is not designed in any way
toreplace those already in existence. The major benefit in the
use of Computer-Assisted Learning is an enhancement, or an
extension of conventional training techniques as applied to a
new and more dynamic model, where the response situation
with its pressures and decisions are experienced.’
It is anticipated that new developed and the
scenarios will be
simulation will be made more complex. There is a delicate,
as yet undefined, balance between having a highly complex
scenario and one which creates a positive learning experience.
It is unknown at this time whether one level of program com-
plexity will be adequate. It may be necessary to have a series
of increasingly complex scenarios so that people with more
experience, or who are better On-Scene Commanders, can still
learn by working through the simulation.
Because training of On-Scene Commanders in oil spill response
has before been done using a computer simulation, it
never
was important that the designed scenarios be realistic. In order
to do this, all parameters were taken from actual measurements,
costs or cleanup incidents. For example, the river and ocean
currents are based on actual measurements. It is realistic to
assume laborers can work 12 hours, then require a rest, as it
is that the On-Scene Commander requires a rest after 16-18
hours of work. This can be substantiated by any oil spill
cleanup. The oil spill trajectories in the simulations are
calculated based on actual trajectory model. Equipment
capabilities and costs are based on actual equipment used in
oil spill response. The simulation is designed to emulate the
real world for training purposes, but there the realism ends.
What works for an oil spill response in either the river or ocean
computer simulation is not necessarily going to work in the
real world. Oil spill response has been simplified to a degree
in the simulation.
The programs have been validated to the best of our ability,
by conducting numerous pilot projects where experienced oil
spill response personnel evaluated the simulations both for their
realism and their learning potential. Improvements and changes
suggested by these people have been incorporated in the simu-
lations. For example, initial commands in both simulations were
input using the keyboard. This was felt to be too restricting,
as the trainees would spend more time trying to understand
the mechanics of the computer operation rather than concen-
trating on the actual oil spill response. This was subsequently
changed and now all commands are input on the touch-
sensitivescreen. Our early pilot program demonstrated prob-
lems using telephone connections; now the program runs on
a disk drive microprocessor unit, which eliminates the need
for a telephone line.
180
Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com by Raluca Maria Aileni on August 7, 2016
The simulation is written in Control Data Canada’s (CDC)
PLATO language. It runs on a CDC 110 Viking terminal, which
has a touch screen capability. This &dquo;portability&dquo; is especially
useful, as Esso has several remote oil fields where personnel
training is costly and difficult. Now the CDC system and in-
structor are flown to the training site, rather than assembling
the trainees and instructor at a central location. The computer-
based training system can be left on site for 2 or 3 months and
used for training or refresher courses. This is a most cost-
effective way of training.
In a major incident, it is recognized that it is not possible to
collect all the oil. As a result of examining all the components
of an oil spill clean-up program, some difficult decisions must
be made. In order to gain experience in strategic decision-
making, and to assist in developing individual capabilities and
confidence in handling an oil spill response, the Computer-
Assisted Learning simulation has been developed. It has
proven to be a useful adjunct to a conventional training pro-
gram. While much emphasis has been placed on the use of
computers to train people to undertake routine yet complex
tasks, there is a wider field at the level of response training for
disasters, be they natural or man-made.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Esso Resources Canada Limited, Production Re-
search, for agreeing to undertake this program; to Control Data
Canada, in particular Jim Gilfillan, for their hard work; and to
Bob Fern, Imperial Oil Limited, Toronto, for all his en-
couragement.
REFERENCES
1 CLEARMAN, R.C.
." Arctic Marine Oil Spill Conference Pro-
"On-Site Arctic Oil Spill Training
ceedings Edmonton, Canada (June 15-17, 1982), 499-502.
2 DIMAS, C.
"The Microcomputer, Mastery Learning and the Changing Role of the In-
structor." ADCIS (Association for the Development of Computer-Based In-
structional Systems) Conference Proceedings. Computer Literacy (1982),
311-316.
3 Esso Resources Canada Limited
Norman Wells Oilfield Expansion Development Plan, Calgary, Canada
(1980).
4 FINGAS, M., DUVAL, W.S., and STEVENSON, G.B.
The Basics of Oil Spill Cleanup. Environmental Emergency Branch, En-
vironmental Protection Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa (1979).
5 GILFILLAN, J., GOODMAN, R.H., and PEABODY, C.H.
Development Document for Computer Assisted Learning. Esso Report,
Calgary, Canada (1982).
6 International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited
Measures to Combat Oil Pollution. Graham and Trotman Ltd., London
(1980).
7 KEARSLEY, G.
"Computer Literacy in Business and Industry. Experience with Micro-
Computer Workshops." ADCIS Conference Proceedings: Computer Literacy.
(1982), 25-30.
8 PEABODY, C.H. and GOODMAN, R.H.
1983 Oil Spill Conference
"InnovativeTraining: Computer Assisted Learning."
Proceedings San Antonio, Texas (1982).