Maritime Studies Assignment Brief: Risk-Based Operational Analysis of Oil Tankers

Assignment

Target Level: Postgraduate / Final-Year Undergraduate (Level 6/7 UK, Senior/Master’s US, Level 8/9 AUS)
Module Name: Maritime Safety, Risk, and Marine Operations (MAR7025)
Assessment Type: Technical Report / Case Study Analysis (Task 1)
Word Count: 2500–3000 words
Weighting: 40% of overall module grade
Academic Year: 2025/2026

Students are expected to demonstrate advanced analytical capability appropriate to Level 6/7 UK or Level 8/9 Australian Qualifications Framework standards. This includes critical evaluation of sources, synthesis of quantitative evidence, and application of professional maritime frameworks rather than descriptive summaries.

Module Instructor’s Context and Task Description

Welcome and Context

Welcome to your first major assessment for the Maritime Safety and Risk module. As future maritime professionals, marine engineers, and logistics managers, you already understand that the safe operation of crude and product oil tankers is paramount. The consequences of operational failure are catastrophic, not only financially but environmentally and in terms of human life.

The maritime industry is shifting toward proactive and predictive risk management rather than reactive compliance. In this assessment, you will step into the role of a senior marine superintendent or safety auditor. Your objective is not merely to restate conventions such as MARPOL or SOLAS, but to critically analyse how risk is actively identified, evaluated, and controlled on deck, in machinery spaces, and during cargo transfer operations. Your work should reflect the analytical depth expected of a maritime professional capable of advising senior management.

Task Instructions

You are required to produce a 2500–3000-word technical report that provides a risk-based operational analysis of oil tanker operations.

You must:

Select a specific operational phase, for example ship-to-ship cargo transfer, berthing under severe meteo-oceanographic conditions, or navigation within confined port limits.
Apply a formal risk assessment methodology such as Bayesian Networks, Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, or the IMO Formal Safety Assessment framework.
Evaluate operational hazards using structured analytical reasoning rather than narrative description.

The chosen methodology must be clearly justified. You are expected to explain why it is appropriate for the operational context selected and demonstrate correct procedural application.

Specific Requirements

1. Hazard Identification

Identify the primary risks associated with your chosen operational phase.
Categorise hazards into human factors, machinery or system failures, and environmental conditions.
Demonstrate understanding of causal chains rather than listing isolated risks.
Show awareness of both immediate operational hazards and latent organisational failures.

Your hazard identification should reflect structured thinking, such as bow-tie logic, system mapping, or process breakdown analysis.

2. Risk Quantification

Apply a recognised risk matrix, probabilistic model, or structured framework.
Assess both likelihood and consequence using justifiable assumptions or available data.
Where quantitative data are unavailable, provide reasoned estimations supported by scholarly literature.

Students should demonstrate numeracy and the ability to interpret probabilistic outputs in a maritime operational context.

3. Regulatory Alignment

Critically evaluate how ISGOTT, the ISM Code, MARPOL, SOLAS, and related conventions address the identified risks.
Identify any regulatory gaps or implementation weaknesses.
Distinguish between compliance and effective safety management.

Strong submissions will demonstrate the ability to critique regulatory adequacy rather than simply describe requirements.

4. Risk Control Options (RCOs)

Propose realistic, industry-applicable mitigation strategies.
Evaluate feasibility, practicality, and potential cost-benefit implications.
Link each proposed RCO directly to identified risks and quantified findings.

Recommendations should demonstrate professional judgement, operational awareness, and commercial realism consistent with industry practice.

5. Formatting and Academic Standards

Use a standard technical report structure:

Executive Summary
Introduction
Methodology
Analysis
Recommendations
Conclusion
Reference List

The Executive Summary and Reference List are excluded from the word count.

All submissions must follow Harvard referencing conventions and use credible academic and industry sources. A minimum of 10 scholarly or industry references is recommended to meet postgraduate standards. Diagrams, risk matrices, and figures should be clearly labelled and referenced within the text.

Grading Rubric / Marking Criteria

Risk Identification and Context (25%)

Distinction / High Distinction (80–100%)
Exceptional framing of the operational scenario with exhaustive and highly accurate identification of complex hazards. Demonstrates systems-level thinking and deep contextual awareness.

Merit / Credit (65–79%)
Clear and thorough identification of hazards with strong understanding of operational context.

Pass (50–64%)
Basic identification of standard hazards. Context is acceptable but lacks depth or specificity.

Fail (Below 50%)
Incomplete or inaccurate hazard identification. Limited understanding of tanker operations.

Application of Risk Methodology (30%)

Distinction / High Distinction (80–100%)
Sophisticated and technically accurate application of a complex risk model such as Bayesian Networks or Fault Tree Analysis. Demonstrates confident synthesis of probabilistic reasoning and structured modelling.

Merit / Credit (65–79%)
Solid application of a standard risk matrix or Formal Safety Assessment framework. Logical and well-structured analysis.

Pass (50–64%)
Adequate use of a basic risk assessment tool but lacks analytical depth or methodological precision.

Fail (Below 50%)
Methodology is absent, misapplied, or purely descriptive without analytical rigour.

Regulatory and Industry Alignment (20%)

Distinction / High Distinction (80–100%)
Comprehensive integration of ISGOTT, the ISM Code, and relevant conventions. Demonstrates critical evaluation of regulatory sufficiency and practical enforcement.

Merit / Credit (65–79%)
Good referencing of maritime codes and standards with sound industry awareness.

Pass (50–64%)
Mentions key regulations but lacks depth in linking them to operational risks.

Fail (Below 50%)
Major regulatory frameworks ignored or inaccurately applied.

Recommendations and Risk Control Options (15%)

Distinction / High Distinction (80–100%)
Innovative, practical, and economically viable RCOs supported by strong professional reasoning.

Merit / Credit (65–79%)
Realistic and actionable recommendations logically derived from analysis.

Pass (50–64%)
Generic recommendations with limited operational specificity.

Fail (Below 50%)
Recommendations missing, unrealistic, or disconnected from analysis.

Academic Writing and Structure (10%)

Distinction / High Distinction (80–100%)
Impeccable technical structure, precise academic tone, and flawless Harvard referencing.

Merit / Credit (65–79%)
Well-structured and clearly written with minor errors.

Pass (50–64%)
Readable but contains structural weaknesses or referencing inconsistencies.

Fail (Below 50%)
Poorly structured, difficult to follow, or not aligned with academic conventions.

Crude oil cargo operations pose significant environmental and safety hazards despite stringent regulatory frameworks. Personnel must execute loading and discharging procedures with precision to mitigate the potential for catastrophic spills or structural failures. Quantitative risk analysis provides a robust mechanism for identifying operational vulnerabilities before they escalate into marine casualties. Employing methodologies such as Bayesian networks enables safety managers to model complex cause-and-effect relationships during tanker berthing and cargo transfer. Research indicates that the probability of oil spill incidents can be systematically quantified to improve safety protocols and operational decision-making during critical cargo phases (Akyuz et al., 2023). Terminal operators and shipmasters rely on empirical modelling to justify implementation of specific risk reduction options. Enhancing crew situational awareness through predictive modelling reduces the likelihood of human error during high-stress operations. Integrating probabilistic models into safety management systems strengthens the resilience of the global tanker fleet.

Risk-based operational analysis in tanker shipping reflects a broader shift in safety science from prescriptive compliance toward systems-based risk governance. Contemporary maritime research emphasises the importance of integrating human reliability analysis, probabilistic modelling, and organisational learning within formal safety management systems. Structured frameworks such as the IMO Formal Safety Assessment process enable decision-makers to balance technical risk reduction with economic feasibility while maintaining environmental protection standards. Empirical studies demonstrate that combining quantitative modelling with human factors assessment significantly enhances predictive capability in complex maritime operations (Klanac, Vladimir and Žiha, 2023). This integrated perspective is essential for ensuring that safety interventions are evidence-based, proportionate, and aligned with international regulatory expectations.

Learning Materials / References

Akyuz, E., Karahalios, H. and Celik, M. (2023). A quantified risk analysis for oil spill during crude oil loading operation on tanker ship under improved Z-number based Bayesian Network approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 197, 115796. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115796

Klanac, A., Vladimir, N. and Žiha, K. (2023). Update on Risk Criteria for Crude Oil Tanker Fleet. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(4), 695. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11040695

Cordeiro, J.P., Moura, M.D., Silva, M.A. and Droguett, E.L. (2021). Methodology for Maritime Risk Assessment in Ports due to Meteo-oceanographic Factors: The Case of the Port of Suape, Brazil. Risk Analysis, 41(10), 1823–1839. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13677

International Maritime Organization (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.

Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Next Assignment (Following Weeks)

Course Code: MAR7025
Next Assessment Title: Human Factors and Organisational Resilience in Maritime Safety Management

Description:
In this follow-up assessment, students will critically evaluate the role of human reliability, safety culture, and organisational resilience in preventing maritime incidents. The task will require application of human error models such as the Swiss Cheese Model or Human Reliability Analysis techniques to a documented tanker or bulk carrier incident. Students will analyse accident investigation reports and propose systemic interventions aligned with Safety Management Systems and international regulatory frameworks. This assessment will build upon the quantitative risk foundation established in Task 1 and deepen understanding of socio-technical safety systems in global shipping.