MARSO702: Assessment 2 – Risk-Based Operational Analysis Report (2026)

Module Overview

Module Code: MARSO702
Module Title: Maritime Safety and Operations
Level: 7 (MSc)
Credits: 20
Delivery: UK/Australia/US maritime academies (e.g., Warsash Maritime School)
Assessment Type: Individual Technical Report
Weighting: 50% of module mark
Word Count: 3,000–3,500 words (±10%, excluding references/appendices)
Submission: Via LMS (Turnitin-enabled PDF/Word) by [insert date]

Assessment Context

Oil tankers handle over 50% of global crude oil transport, where operational risks like spills, fires, and structural failures demand rigorous analysis under IMO conventions such as MARPOL, SOLAS, and ISM Code. Regulators and class societies require operators to demonstrate risk-based decision-making through structured assessments that integrate hazard identification, quantitative evaluation, and barrier management. This task mirrors real-world safety cases used in flag state audits and aligns with Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) guidelines, preparing you for roles in tanker operations, safety management, or consultancy.

Task Description

Conduct a risk-based operational analysis of safe oil tanker operations, focusing on key phases: cargo loading, transit, and discharge. Select a realistic scenario, such as a VLCC loading crude at a Nigerian terminal or STS transfer at sea.

Your report must:

Define operational boundaries, stakeholders (e.g., crew, terminal, charterer), and relevant regulations (e.g., ISGOTT, OCIMF guidelines).
Identify hazards using HAZID/HAZOP or bow-tie method.
Assess risks with a 5×5 matrix (likelihood x severity), prioritising top 5–7.
Propose layered barriers (preventive/recovery) and evaluate residual risk.
Recommend prioritised actions linked to SMS improvement.

Include at least two visual aids (e.g., risk matrix, bow-tie diagram) in appendices.

Report Structure

Executive Summary (200 words): Scenario overview, key risks, top recommendations.
Introduction (400 words): Scenario description, aims, scope.
Regulatory Framework (400 words): IMO/MARPOL/ISM alignment.
Hazard Identification (600 words): Method, tabulated outputs.
Risk Assessment (800 words): Matrix, assumptions, key drivers.
Control Measures (600 words): Barriers, effectiveness analysis.
Recommendations (400 words): Action plan, monitoring.
Conclusion (200 words): Findings synthesis.
References: 15+ Harvard-style sources (2018–2026).
Appendices: Matrices, diagrams.

Requirements

Formatting: 1.5 spacing, Arial 11pt, Harvard referencing.
Visuals: 2–4 diagrams/tables; label/cite.
Originality: <15% similarity; AI detection checked.
Sources: Peer-reviewed journals, IMO docs, OCIMF reports.

Learning Outcomes

Apply risk analysis to tanker operations.
Evaluate barriers under international standards.
Develop defensible safety arguments.

Marking Rubric

Criterion	Weight	Excellent (80–100%)	Good (60–79%)	Satisfactory (40–59%)	Fail (<40%)
Knowledge & Regulation	20%	Nuanced integration of IMO/OCIMF with recent cases	Solid coverage, minor gaps	Basic, some inaccuracies	Superficial/misapplied
Hazard/Risk Analysis	30%	Rigorous HAZID/bow-tie, quantified uncertainties	Clear method, some assumptions	Descriptive, limited structure	Unstructured/incomplete
Barriers & Recommendations	25%	Layered, ALARP-justified, SMS-linked	Practical, partially evaluated	Generic lists	Irrelevant/unsafe
Structure & Communication	15%	Professional, visuals enhance argument	Logical, minor flaws	Readable but disjointed	Disorganised/unclear
Referencing & Originality	10%	15+ recent sources, flawless Harvard	Adequate, few errors	Limited/inconsistent	Absent/plagiarised

(Executive Summary Example)

Cargo loading on a 300,000 DWT VLCC at a West African terminal poses risks from overpressurisation, spills, and human error during ballast exchange. Primary hazards include vapour cloud explosions (likelihood: occasional, severity: catastrophic, initial risk: high) and manifold leaks (medium risk). Barriers such as high-level alarms and double-block valves reduce residual risk to ALARP, but fatigue monitoring gaps persist. Prioritised actions involve VR simulator training and AI predictive analytics for pump failures. Implementation within SMS yields 40% risk reduction, aligning with IMO FSA goals (Wang et al., 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107956).[4]

References (Harvard)

Guc, M. (2018) Safety assessment of crude oil tankers. Safety Science, 109, pp. 1–12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.05.008.
Wang, C. et al. (2021) Operational safety evaluation of tanker cargo oil system. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 216, p. 107956. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107956.
Dantsoho, A.M. (2015) Risk-based framework for safety management. PhD thesis. Liverpool John Moores University. Available at: https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/4496/.
IMO (2020) Guidelines for formal safety assessment. MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12/Rev.2. London: IMO.
Bhattacharya, S. (2022) Human factors in tanker risk management. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 21(1), pp. 45–67. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-021-00245-3.

Oil tanker safe operations risk analysis assignment