Geology topics

James H. Williams

Publications and source records attributed to James H. Williams.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Vulnerability of the petroleum sector to volcanic hazards: Application to multi-hazards at Taranaki Mounga volcano, Aotearoa New Zealand

Volcanic eruptions can cause substantial damage and disruption to infrastructure and communities. Contemporary societies typically depend on petroleum infrastructure. Volcanic unrest and eruptions can cause considerable operational and structural challenges for the petroleum sector. The vulnerability of this sector to volcanic hazards is understudied when compared to other potentially dangerous phenomena (e.g. earthquakes). In this paper, we present new volcanic physical vulnerability models for the four key asset classes of the petroleum sector: wells, pipelines, production facilities and storage tanks. The vulnerability models are developed based on a literature review and facilitated expert judgement in the form of workshops with petroleum engineers and volcanic risk experts. These models consider four hazard intensity metrics (burial thickness, static load, dynamic pressure and airborne ash concentration) and are thus applicable to multiple volcanic hazards. We apply these models to pre-existing multi-hazard eruption scenarios for Taranaki Mounga volcano in Aotearoa New Zealand, using an available impact assessment framework to demonstrate their usability in impact and risk modelling. Our impact assessment indicates that a future eruption of Taranaki Mounga volcano could cause widespread impacts to the petroleum sector, which would in turn create a prolonged national emergency due to energy supply shortages for major industries and consumers. These vulnerability models may be applied in other volcanic regions worldwide to inform risk reduction and readiness actions.

Taranaki Mounga volcano↗

USGS2015

Training conservation practitioners to be better decision makers

Traditional conservation curricula and training typically emphasizes only one part of systematic decision making ( i.e. , the science), at the expense of preparing conservation practitioners with critical skills in values-setting, working with decision makers and stakeholders, and effective problem framing. In this article we describe how the application of decision science is relevant to conservation problems and suggest how current and future conservation practitioners can be trained to be better decision makers. Though decision-analytic approaches vary considerably, they all involve: (1) properly formulating the decision problem; (2) specifying feasible alternative actions; and (3) selecting criteria for evaluating potential outcomes. Two approaches are available for providing training in decision science, with each serving different needs. Formal education is useful for providing simple, well-defined problems that allow demonstrations of the structure, axioms and general characteristics of a decision-analytic approach. In contrast, practical training can offer complex, realistic decision problems requiring more careful structuring and analysis than those used for formal training purposes. Ultimately, the kinds and degree of training necessary depend on the role conservation practitioners play in a decision-making process. Those attempting to facilitate decision-making processes will need advanced training in both technical aspects of decision science and in facilitation techniques, as well as opportunities to apprentice under decision analysts/consultants. Our primary goal should be an attempt to ingrain a discipline for applying clarity of thought to all decisions.

Sustainability↗