3

Incident-Phase Games Observations

This chapter highlights some discussion points and participant takeaways from each of the three incident-phase games—Prevention and Preparedness; Response; and Impacts, Recovery, and Restoration.

PREVENTION AND PREPAREDNESS GAME

After receiving instructions on how to play the game and use the virtual interface, the two teams entered the free-play portion of the game.¹ The initial focus of discussion for the Oil Spill team was a hurricane scenario. Other scenarios discussed were cyberattack, another spill similar to the Taylor oil spill accident (involving a mudslide), gravity currents, a tanker running into an oil rig, terrorist attack, and failures stemming from human error.

During the recap portion of the game, participant discussions focused on two scenarios—cyberattack and hurricane.

• Cyberattack. One scenario involves compromising the dynamic positioning system of a drill ship, resulting in loss of thruster control and a subsequent disconnect, loss of hydrostatic balance, and

___________________

¹ For a more detailed description of the gameplay for the Prevention and Preparedness Game, see a copy of the player instructions. The instructions can be found at https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/06-15-2021/offshore-situation-room-enhancingresilience-to-offshore-oil-disasters-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.

blowout. From a prevention standpoint, one participant pointed to the need for performing cyber assessments, having the right policies and procedures in place, and having a system that checks all software to prevent viruses from reaching key systems (such as dynamic propulsion or emergency disconnect). Another commented that cybersecurity has been a concern for years, with strict procedures regarding data and system changes, as well as close monitoring.

• Hurricane. The Oil Spill team began by going over two potential scenarios. First, a hurricane passing through the northern Gulf could make the sediment configuration unstable and produce a gravity current with a lot of energy, potentially affecting infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, platforms). In a second scenario, the hurricane could re-suspend sediment that resettles from the water column back to the seafloor, making it unstable. A few of the prevention measures identified during the game included the continued refinement and proper execution of hurricane plans, the shutdown of systems prior to the hurricane’s arrival, and leasing restrictions in bona fide hazardous areas where the application of engineering and technology is not capable to sufficiently reduce the risk associated with the activities. However, because leasing restrictions are relatively new, a concern raised by more than one participant was that these restrictions do not apply to some existing infrastructure. Nevertheless, another participant noted that structures are designed for geological hazards and reviewed by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; the plans go to a certification agency for review if the structure is located in an area susceptible to mudslides. A subsurface safety valve should be positioned deeply enough to prevent a problem if a mudslide does occur. According to one participant, since major structures were lost in the 1960s, companies avoid placing structures in mudslide areas. Everyone runs high-resolution sonar before siting a facility because of the enormous expense associated with losing these types of facilities.

When sharing their experiences about this game (in the initial portion of the Needs and Planning Game on Day 2), participants identified several takeaways. Most notably, a few participants commented on how many players seemed unaware of the body of work (e.g., intervention equipment, regulations, American Petroleum Institute documents) developed over the past decade that are meant to mitigate some of the concerns introduced

during the game. One player added that this lack of awareness indicated that there was room for more education to take place. Additional takeaways participants identified included the following:

• The underappreciated ability to use leasing requirements and restrictions to avoid geohazard risks
• Ensuring appropriate recognition of strategic cyberattacks on the oil industry, including development of a strategic vision, plan, and roadmap, and an all-encompassing strategic analysis of cyber issues
• Concerns about adequate enforcement of regulations and practices
• The ability to sustain existing improvement processes

RESPONSE GAME

The Response Game functioned much like a traditional board game, with teams discussing which actions to select based on a predetermined list of potential player actions and determining how to sequence these actions.² Two iterations of the Response Game occurred simultaneously on Day 1 of the event.

Direct real-world takeaways from the Response Game were limited, as it constrained player actions and was subject to artificialities that simplified decision making and enabled gameplay over 2.5 hours. For example, the game rules limited each team to two player actions every round, forcing teams to make a number of trade-off decisions that would not occur in a real-world response. Nevertheless, as in the real world, the Response Game highlighted the need for interaction across various stakeholder groups. The ability for teams to coordinate actions, which improved as the players became more knowledgeable of one another’s capabilities, led to an optimized ability to control the spill.

Additionally, the game’s pre-identified player actions did reflect—albeit abstractly and in a simplified way—key operational activities performed in past real-world oil spill responses (e.g., laying boom, skimming oil, applying dispersants, communicating with the media, training members of the community). Thus, the game provided prompts for player discussions and

___________________

² For a more detailed description of the gameplay for the Response Game, see a copy of the player instructions. The instructions can be found at https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/06-15-2021/offshore-situation-room-enhancing-resilience-to-offshoreoil-disasters-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.

comments linking back to real-world challenges and considerations. Four examples are provided below:

• The game applied a modest penalty to public sentiment when dispersants were applied to the oil spill; according to one player, in reality communities would be outraged by dispersant use. Even 11 years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, there is no consensus within the research community about how to judge the trade-offs. Toward that end, the player identified the need to build on research and develop practical, adaptive guidance about dispersant use.
• The game engendered a discussion about the importance of coordination of resources and an understanding of timelines for action and result, followed by evaluation.
• Another player commented on the limited options for addressing oil removal in the game. After expressing a desire for a wildcard that captures development of a new cleanup technology, he pointed to the catch-22, real-world situation new technologies currently face. Specifically, rollout of new technologies is stymied because of lack of data on their performance; however, the inability to deploy these technologies makes collecting such data problematic.

Regarding media engagement, two participants described the complex situation arising during Deepwater Horizon. One player described the information coming out of the Unified Area Command in Robert, Louisiana, as limited. Responders were required to sign confidentiality agreements to access data, preventing them from speaking to the media. Moreover, a second player noted that in the absence of authoritative messaging, news organizations turned to academics, who sometimes failed to understand the implications of the statements or acknowledge what they did not know. As a result, some of the messaging during Deepwater Horizon was wrong. He concluded by emphasizing the importance of messaging in large-scale spills, with messaging not only from political officials but also from people who understand oil spills and are supplied with information to help messaging.

IMPACTS, RECOVERY, AND RESTORATION GAME

The Impacts, Recovery, and Restoration Game functioned much like a traditional board game that focused on resource management and nego-

tiation.³ Two iterations of the Impacts, Recovery, and Restoration Game occurred simultaneously on Day 1 of the event.

The same caveats that apply to deriving real-world takeaways from gameplay in the Response Game—game rules limiting player actions and game artificialities—apply equally in the Impacts, Recovery, and Restoration Game. However, participants commented on the somewhat realistic feel of the game when negotiating with other teams. Much like the real world, the gameplay highlighted the benefits of working collaboratively. Moreover, participants acknowledged the challenges of optimizing resource use, given the potential for differing agendas to disrupt collaborative action (even in cases of a mutually beneficial option). Also speaking to the real world was the games’ affirmation of the importance of communication and relationship building ahead of an event.

___________________

³ For a detailed description of the gameplay for the Impacts, Recovery, and Restoration Game, see a copy of the player instructions. The instructions can be found at https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/06-15-2021/offshore-situation-room-enhancingresilience-to-offshore-oil-disasters-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.

This page intentionally left blank.