BACKTRACKING POLLUTERS AT SEA
Marko Perkovič , Milan Batista , Lucjan Gucma
a
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Tansportna, Slovenia
ABSTRACT
Marine oil and chemical pollution is one of the major
threats to the sea environment. The cause of pollution
can be operational - both intentional and unintentional -
or accidental, due to collision, grounding, sinking, fire
on board, heavy weather conditions or mechanical and
structural failure. This work presents polluter
identification models that begin with the analysis of
SAR images. The ideal case, in which a freshly
released slick is detected, is rare. Usually the acquired
image shows a slick that is already weathered, with a
currents-and-wind-distorted slick footprint and either no
ships or too many ships in the vicinity. Another problem
related to polluter tracking is the availability of
metocean ancillary data. Highly accurate wind and
currents data are necessary for successful backtracking
of a slick towards likely polluters and the origin of a
spill.
INTRODUCTION
Illicit oil discharging, a common practice, represents the
main source of marine pollution from ships, amplifying
the demand for efficient detection and mapping of oil
spills (Ferraro et al., 2007). Key instruments for
detecting and monitoring spills at sea are Synthetic
Aperture Radar (SAR) systems, which are able to
detect spills on the sea surface indirectly given the
damping of Bragg waves. The oil film dampens these
waves, the primary backscatter agents of the incident
radar beam, appearing as dark patches on the SAR
image. Bragg waves are induced by surface winds but
are also modulated by other ocean surface features.
Diverse kinds of pollution can cause slicks detectable
by SAR (e.g., vegetable oil, river runoff, drilling fluid
from an oil rig, etc.) and the SAR sensor is currently not
capable of distinguishing between the different
pollutants. In practice it is very difficult to distinguish
surface films from each other by merely analyzing the
radar backscattering data (Müllenhoff et al., 2008).
Knowledge of environmental conditions as well as
contextual information about slick position relative to
surrounding objects (ships, maritime routes, rigs,
wrecks and undersea pipelines) is in many cases
essential for determining the probability of oil spills
extant on SAR imagery (Perkovic et al., 2010).
2011-2015; 593 indications
2016;; 102 indications
34; < 1 km2
56; 1 – 10 km2
9; > 10 km2
3; > 50 km2
Figure 1: CSN Results; Adriatic Sea (2011-2015)
Further, for successful backtracking of illicit
polluters, when slicks are already weathered highly
accurate metocean data are necessary to ‘transport’
the slicks from their detected locations towards the
origins of the spills and to identify the polluters. To
reduce or even eliminate illicit pollution at sea, in 2007
EMSA launched a European operational CleanSeaNet
(CSN) system. Since CSN inception more than 2000
yearly SAR images have indicated almost 3000 slicks
(per year), (Perkovic et al., 2018).
Figure 1: Backtracking concept
a* a b
b
University of Szczecin, Faculty of Navigation, Poland
*marko.perkovic@fpp.uni-lj.si
OBJECTIVE
Developing the advanced backtracking model, which
incorporates the GIS contextual data, the shipping data,
and the metocean data for more precise processing and,
most importantly, accurate backtracking based on AIS
currents. The most challenging aspect is the
determination of currents from vessel drift, which itself
presents complications, as it must be understood in
relation to wind and even vessel interactions.
Backtracking concept is depicted briefly by Figure 2.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
For precise backtracking, accurate metocean data and a
view of the overall shipping situation in the area is
required. Extensive local data must be available -
contextual particulars of bathymetry, wrecks, piping and
drilling activity, natural seeps, shore industry, metocean
phenomena, fishing traffic, for truly accurate
backtracking validation of metocean data is essential;
and shipping data must be analyzed clearly and
matched with port authorities’ log books (Müllenhoff et
al., 2008, Ferraro et al., 2010). Further complications are
unknowns like the type of oil or mixture that was
discharged, quantities and initial locations. Through this
fog we must decide how long to backtrack the slick and
roll back AIS archives. Oil type is an important factor, for
the way an oil slick breaks up and dissipates depends
largely on how persistent the oil is. Light products, non-
persistent oils (e.g., kerosene), tend to evaporate and
dissipate quickly and naturally and rarely need cleaning-
up. Persistent oils, such as many crude oils, act more
slowly and usually require clean-up. Physical properties
such as density, viscosity and pour point all affect oil
behaviour. Dissipation also depends on weather
conditions and whether the oil stays at sea or is washed
ashore. Figure 3 illustrates the complete procedure for
backtracking and identification.
Figure 3: Advanced backtracking methodology
Figure 4 is a snapshot of one moment in time off
southern Istria, when there is a cast of 12 ships which
the model will either include (green lines and circles) or
exclude (red circles and lines).The model requires
angles (angles between the tracks of two ships sailing
on a straight leg), which is why ships on parallel courses
(same or opposite heading) are excluded. Vessels with
an excessive ROT are also excluded, as are both very
slow and very fast-moving ships, and of course ships
with evident gyro errors. Ships too far apart (are
excluded, and, finally both service ships and all those
with AIS B transponders. So, from this one snapshot,
five ships will be used to generate a field of currents. All
selected vessels, of course, have weights and
parameters quantified for the model (from O to 4):
distance and angle.
Figure 4: Vessel traffic data, pairwise comparison and
geometrically derived current from two drifting vessels
RESULTS
Following table and figures show the results for three
different conditions: left is drift based on high resolution
data; the middle frame shows results of total drift (without
accounting for leeway); and the last frame shows results
including VTE error.
Figure 5: AIS current, (left) HR model, (mid) without leeway
and on the right VTE (vessel technical error) & leeway
Here, quite simply presented, is the model succeeding.
The oil detected is at the upper left and backtracking
lasts four hours. On the right is the location of the spill
according to backtracking with Metocean forecasting
(white solid line) and improved Metocean data with SAR
measurements (the broken yellow line): the improvement
with the additional SAR data is 197 meters. On the left,
the improvement from the Metocean forecasting using
the model is 1387 meters closer to the actual spill initially
released
Figure 6: Backtracking HFO oil, left based on pure
METOCEAN data, at right vessel drift approach applied
VALIDATION
Here two tests are presented based on AIS data for
multiple ships, each test depicted with two figures, traffic
formation and calculated errors and . Calculated data are
interpolated with the Shepard inverse distance weighted
method assumption that surface flow can be
approximated as 2D flow of incompressible fluid.
a) b)
Figure 7: velocity field. Blue is true field, red is approximated.
Black are given points. Polynomial degree 3, number of control
points: 5
Conclusion
Numerical experiments show that neither method is superior. Both
give approximately the same error which depends on the
underlying velocity field, region size, and number of control points.
In general, the IDW method yields better results in proximity of
control points, but both methods fail at the edges of the region.
However, if the underlying field is precisely described by a
polynomial (as for example pure cyclone or pure homogeneous
flow) then second method is superior).
MAJOR REFERENCES
1.Perkovic M, Greidanus H, Müllenhoff O, Ferraro G, Pavlakis P, Cosoli
S. and Harsch R (2010) Marine polluter identification: Backtracking with
the aid of satellite imaging. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, Vol. 19, no
10b, pp.2426-2432
2.Müllenhoff O, Bulgarelli B, Ferraro, G, Perkovic M, Topouzelis K,
Sammarini V (2008). “Geospatial modelling of metocean and
environmental ancillary data for the oil spill probability assessment in
SAR images”. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 7110, pp. 1-10
3.Ferraro, G. Baschek, B., de Montpellier, G., Njoten, O. Perkovic, M.,
and Vespe, M. (2010). “On the SAR derived alert in the detection of oil
spills according to the analysis of the EGEMP”. Marine Poll. Bull., vol.
60, no. 1, pp. 92-102.
4. Perkovic M, Harsch R, Ferraro G, (2018) Oil Spills in Adriatic Sea,
Oil Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea: Part II, Springer, pp, 97-131