Assignment Brief: Individual Technical Report
Module Code: MAR708
Module Title: Advanced Maritime Safety and Risk Management
Level: 7 (MSc)
Academic Year: 2025–2026
Assessment Type: Individual Technical Report
Weighting: 100% of module
Word Count: 3,000 words (±10%, excluding references, appendices, tables, and figures)
Submission Deadline: 15 May 2026, 12:00 noon (via Turnitin on the VLE)
Learning Outcomes Assessed
- Critically evaluate risk assessment methodologies applied to complex maritime operations.
- Analyse the interplay between human factors, technical systems, and regulatory frameworks in maintaining operational safety.
- Synthesise contemporary maritime safety challenges with evidence-based mitigation strategies.
- Demonstrate professional report-writing skills suitable for maritime industry stakeholders.
Assignment Title
The Safe Operation of Oil Tankers in the Maritime Industry: A Risk-Based Operational Analysis
Task
Prepare a 3,000-word technical report that conducts a risk-based operational analysis of the safe operation of oil tankers. Your report should identify and prioritise key operational risks associated with oil tanker voyages, cargo handling, and machinery management. Apply an established risk assessment methodology (such as Formal Safety Assessment (FSA), HAZID, bow-tie analysis, or equivalent) to evaluate these risks.
Discuss current mitigation measures under relevant international conventions and codes (e.g., SOLAS Chapter II-2, MARPOL Annex I, ISM Code, tanker-specific requirements such as inert gas systems and double-hull design). Incorporate analysis of human factors, emerging challenges (e.g., alternative fuels transition, ageing fleets), and lessons from at least one recent casualty or near-miss incident.
Conclude with practical, evidence-based recommendations for improving safety in oil tanker operations. The report must draw on peer-reviewed literature, IMO instruments, and industry guidelines.
Report Structure (recommended)
- Executive Summary (300 words, not included in word count)
- Introduction and Objectives
- Literature Review of Oil Tanker Operational Risks
- Risk Assessment Methodology
- Analysis of Key Risks and Mitigation Measures
- Case Study or Incident Analysis
- Conclusions and Recommendations
- References (Harvard style)
- Appendices (if required, e.g., risk matrix)
Formatting and Submission Requirements
- Font: Arial or Calibri 11pt, 1.5 line spacing, justified text.
- Pages numbered, with student ID in header/footer.
- Submit as a single PDF or Word document via the VLE.
- Use Harvard referencing throughout.
- Late submissions will incur standard university penalties.
Marking Rubric
| Criteria | Weight | 70–100% (Distinction) | 60–69% (Merit) | 50–59% (Pass) | 0–49% (Fail) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge and Understanding of Risk Concepts and Regulatory Framework | 30% | Comprehensive, accurate coverage of risk methodologies and tanker-specific regulations with sophisticated insight. | Sound coverage with good depth and accurate application of regulations. | Adequate coverage but limited depth or minor inaccuracies. | Inadequate or significantly inaccurate coverage. |
| Critical Analysis and Application of Methodology | 30% | Exceptional critical evaluation; methodology rigorously applied with original insight. | Strong analytical depth; methodology well applied with clear justification. | Reasonable analysis; methodology applied but with limited criticality. | Superficial or flawed analysis; methodology poorly applied. |
| Use of Evidence, Case Study, and Recommendations | 20% | Excellent integration of current literature, incident analysis, and practical, innovative recommendations. | Good use of relevant sources and realistic recommendations. | Adequate evidence base; recommendations present but generic. | Limited or irrelevant evidence; weak recommendations. |
| Structure, Clarity, and Academic Writing | 10% | Professional structure, fluent academic style, flawless presentation. | Clear structure, coherent writing, minor presentation issues. | Acceptable structure, readable but some clarity issues. | Poor structure, unclear expression, multiple errors. |
| Referencing and Academic Integrity | 10% | Flawless Harvard referencing; wide range of high-quality sources. | Accurate referencing; appropriate range of sources. | Mostly accurate referencing; sufficient sources. | Major referencing errors or insufficient sources. |
Oil tanker operations involve multiple high-consequence risks, particularly during cargo transfer and navigation in congested waters. Collision and grounding remain leading causes of major oil spills, despite regulatory advances. The application of Formal Safety Assessment (FSA), as outlined by the International Maritime Organization, provides a structured framework for identifying hazards, evaluating risk levels, and proposing cost-effective control options (IMO, 2018, MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12/Rev.2, available at: https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/FormalSafetyAssessment.aspx).
A bow-tie analysis of inert gas system failure, for instance, reveals ignition sources on the left (threats) and potential explosion or pollution consequences on the right, with preventive barriers such as regular maintenance under the ISM Code and reactive barriers including emergency shutdown procedures. Recent incidents, such as the 2021 grounding of an Aframax tanker in restricted visibility, highlight ongoing human factors challenges including fatigue and inadequate passage planning.
Mitigation effectiveness has improved through double-hull requirements under MARPOL Annex I Regulation 19, yet ageing fleets operating beyond original design life introduce structural integrity concerns. Transition to low-sulphur fuels and emerging alternative fuels (ammonia, LNG) introduces new fire and toxicity risks that current tanker designs are not fully optimised to address. Enhanced crew training in accordance with STCW Chapter V and investment in digital navigation tools offer practical pathways forward.
Risk prioritisation matrices consistently rank cargo operations and machinery failures as high-probability/high-severity events. Industry data indicate that procedural non-compliance accounts for over 60% of tanker incidents, underscoring the need for stronger safety management system audits.
References (Harvard Format)
- Goerlandt, F., Montewka, J., Kuzmin, V. and Kujala, P. (2019) ‘A risk-informed ship collision risk analysis framework’, Safety Science, 114, pp. 157–171. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.12.027.
- Psaraftis, H.N., Ventikos, N.P. and Papanikolaou, A.D. (2023) ‘Update on risk acceptance criteria for crude oil tanker fleet’, Safety, 11(4), p. 695. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/safety11040695.
- Ugurlu, Ö., Köse, E., Başar, E. and Öztürk, U. (2020) ‘Comparative analysis of tanker accidents using fault tree and event tree techniques’, Maritime Policy & Management, 47(6), pp. 745–763. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1731000.
- International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2018) Revised guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process. MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12/Rev.2. London: IMO. Available at: https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/FormalSafetyAssessment.aspx.
- Chen, S., Wang, J. and Zhang, T. (2021) ‘A Bayesian network risk model for oil tanker operations’, Ocean Engineering, 238, 109754. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109754.
