Subsea Release of Oil from a Riser: An Ecological Risk Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study illustrates a newly developed methodology, as a part of the U.S. EPA ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework, to predict exposure concentrations in a marine environment due to underwater release of oil and gas. It combines the hydrodynamics of underwater blowout, weathering algorithms, and multimedia fate and transport to measure the exposure concentration. Naphthalene and methane are used as surrogate compounds for oil and gas, respectively. Uncertainties are accounted for in multimedia input parameters in the analysis. The 95th percentile of the exposure concentration (EC(95%)) is taken as the representative exposure concentration for the risk estimation. A bootstrapping method is utilized to characterize EC(95%) and associated uncertainty. The toxicity data of 19 species available in the literature are used to calculate the 5th percentile of the predicted no observed effect concentration (PNEC(5%)) by employing the bootstrapping method. The risk is characterized by transforming the risk quotient (RQ), which is the ratio of EC(95%) to PNEC(5%), into a cumulative risk distribution. This article describes a probabilistic basis for the ERA, which is essential from risk management and decision-making viewpoints. Two case studies of underwater oil and gas mixture release, and oil release with no gaseous mixture are used to show the systematic implementation of the methodology, elements of ERA, and the probabilistic method in assessing and characterizing the risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".