Apparatus and method of concomitant scenario topography with the aid of a digital computer

Waste Isolation and Containment

The initial step entails the determination and establishment of a set of procedural rules. This step is relatively common for many scientific, analytic, or production endeavors and should not pose any difficulty for those skilled in the art. The basic rules for Factor-Weighting and Category-Scoring are summarized in Table 1, Procedural Rules.

TABLE 1

Procedural Rules For GOM, WNA, and ENP Regions

The sum of “weight %” must=100.

Under each criterion, “total weight %” is the sum of all included factor weights.

Exclusionary factors are “excluded” (factor is activated) or “included” (factor inactive).

Excluded factors carry no weight %.

To treat a scorable factor as exclusionary, it must be assigned a very low weight % (e.g. 0.001 %), a factor-category score of 1 for the included condition, and a large negative score (e.g. −10e7) for the excluded condition.

Distance weightings apply individually to each area (WNA, GOM, ENP) and associated ports. Within each area, one or more ports may be weighted, giving a combination score for the cells ≦1000 nautical miles (nm) from all included ports.

Valid “Category scores” must range from 1.0 to 5.0 (1.0 is least desirable, 5.0 is most desirable).

Individual factor-categories may be excluded by assigning large negative numbers (e.g. −1000).

Factor weighting is normalized as weight percent,

normalized factor weight=100(weight/weight sum)

To compute category factors,

weighted factor score=(normalized factor weight)×(category score)

For continuous-range (distance) factors,

weighted factor score=0.01×(normalized factor weight)

For exclusion factors,

weighted factor score=IF (factor excluded by “e” in factor weight column) is

TRUE, then return (−1000)

FALSE, then return (0)

Scoring for continuous-value (distance) is calculated from,

distance weighted-score=IF (grid cell distance>1000) is

TRUE, then return (−1000)

FALSE, then return ((factor weighting)×((((1000-grid cell distance)/1000)4)+1))

The final geo-referenced grid-cell score is,

grid-cell score=(SUM(weighted factor scores)+ABS.VAL.(SUM(weighted factor scores)))/2

where ABS.VAL. is the absolute value of the quantity

Converting exclusion factors and excluded categories to a normalized score, for example,

grid-cell % score=12.5×((grid-cell score-1)+ABS.VAL.(grid-cell score-1))

In FIG. 1, a selected ocean area contiguous to the coastline of the continental United States has been partitioned into 1° (degree) cells, i.e. uniquely-referenced, uniform small areas. This embodiment of the present invention is concerned with the topographical depiction of the selection, grading, and ranking of attributes or properties possessed by each cell; It is presumed those properties are homogeneous within a particular cell. For simplicity, the area of interest for possible waste disposal sites has been divided into three regions, Western North Atlantic (WNA), Gulf of Mexico (GOM), and Eastern North Pacific (ENP). This in no way affects the method of the present invention; the present invention can be practiced as a single, large area or a sub-division of that area into regions.

The sequence of steps constituting the method in accordance with the present invention is depicted in FIG. 2 . Using a personal computer and spreadsheet software, Factor-Weighting Table 20 is constructed for receiving, arranging, storing, manipulating, and conveying data to Factor-Category Scoring Table 22. Factor-Weighting Table 20 and Factor-Category Scoring Table 22 are related to each other by at least one join field. Factor-Weighting Table 20 is “open-ended” in the sense that all the variables stored therein may be modified (including adding new variables and changing or deleting existing variables) responsively at any time during use of the present invention. A portion of the contents and structure of Factor-Weighting Table 20 appears in FIG. 3 . Here the table comprises six lists, including criteria concomitant with selected scenarios, those factors associated with each criterion, an assigned weight for each factor, and normalized factor weight. From left to right in FIG. 3, the leftmost tabulation contains a unique alphabetic index identifier for each Criterion. Adjacent, and to the immediate right of this identifier, is a tabulation of each Criterion. Example Criteria include “Anthropogenic”, “Geologic”and “Oceanographic”. Adjacent, and to the immediate right of the Criterion tabulation is a list providing a unique numerical index identifier for each of the factors. The factors are listed adjacent and immediate to the right of the numerical index identifier list. Although not wholly shown in FIG. 3, in this particular scenario there are a total of 41 factors affecting the decision of where best to dump and isolate waste in the sea. Example factors include “HITS 1° ship density” (Historical Temporal Shipping database for one degree square cells) and “Max. slope, °/5′×5′ square (maximum slope in degrees in a 5′ (minute) square cell). The various factors are partitioned into three groups: (1) quantitative factors which can be considered “scorable”, i.e. changeable at the option of the user, are assigned an inclusive, numeric index identifier between 1-99, (2) factors which can be considered “exclusion”, i.e. factors whose nature is sufficient to proscribe selection of any cell featuring that factor, are assigned an inclusive, numeric index identifier between 101-199, and finally, (3) factors which can be considered “fixed score”, i.e. factors not subject to environmental variability, such as the distance between a seaport and a cell, are assigned an inclusive, numeric index identifier between 201-299. These index identifier numbers are not included in the scoring mechanism.

Adjacent, and to the immediate right of the factor tabulation is a list of associated weights for each factor. Weights may comprise either numerical or alphabetical symbol values. For all “exclusion” factors, the weight is defined to be the symbol “e”; for all “fixed score” factors, the weight is defined to be the integer, “0”; for all “scorable” factors, the weight is determined by the user and can be any positive integer. For example, the designated weight for the factor, “Layer 6 bottom current speed” is 9. This latter weight determination by the user reflects the user's perception of a ranking of the relative importance of the “scorable” factors. This is the critical column list providing simple, rapid, dynamic interaction by the user.

Finally, the extreme rightmost list tabulates the normalized weight of the various factors, expressed as a percent of the total weight sum,

i.e. total normalized sum=100.00. For example, the normalized factor weight for the factor, “Layer 6 bottom current speed” is 9.00 %.

As shown in FIG. 2, Factor-Category Scoring Table 22 receives data from Factor-Weighting Table 20. This linked data between the two tables comprises tabulations from three join fields: (1) a unique numerical index identifier for each of the factors, i.e. 1-299, (2) the factor associated with that identifier, and (3) the normalized weight factor associated with each factor. A portion of these three lists, plus four additional lists not linked from Factor-Weighting Table 20, are illustrated as a factor category scoring table in FIG. 4 .

Leftmost in FIG. 4 is the previously described list providing a unique numerical index identifier for each of the factors (e.g. 1-299). Adjacent and immediately to the right of the numerical index identifier list is the associated list of factors, one factor for each identifier number. Adjacent and immediately to the right of the list of factors is the associated normalized factor weight list, one normalized factor weight for each factor. These three aforementioned tabulations are the join fields also appearing in Factor-Weighting Table 20, FIG. 3 .

An important distinction between Factor-Weighting Table 20, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 and Factor-Category Scoring Table 22, FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 is the now-displayed presence of a quantitative set of ranged values, or categories (bins), associated with and listed as a subset directly beneath each “scorable” factor. These category bins are used to partition the exhaustive set of expected values for the factor variable, thereby improving the resolution and accuracy of the method. For example, factor number 21, “Layer 6 bottom current speed” has associated with it a real variable, i.e. measure of speed, whose value may appear exclusively in one of six possible category bins, (1) 0.0-0.25 centimeters/second (cm/sec), (2) 0.25-0.5 cm/sec, (3) 0.5-1.0 cm/sec, (4) 1.0-2.0 cm/sec, (5) 2.0-4.0 cm/sec, and finally (6) 4.0-8.0 cm/sec. The number and extent of the boundaries of these category bins, i.e. sets of ranged values or categories, are determined and generated on the basis of scientific research experience and judgment.

Associated with each category (range value bin) in FIG. 4, is an assigned value related to the highest expected magnitude for the particular associated category. This number is tabulated adjacent and immediately to the right of the normalized factor weight list. Used primarily for worksheet bookkeeping purposes, this tabulation is not used in the subsequent scoring.

Adjacent and immediately to the right of the aforementioned assigned value list is the associated tabulation of Category Scores. Similar in nature to the weight list of Factor-Weighting Table 20, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, the Category Scores list provides for ranking interaction by the user. Based upon individual experience and judgment, the user of the present invention can rank each category as to desirability by assigning a real, positive number between 1.0 and 5.0, wherein a ranking of 5.0 designates the most desirable category value and, conversely, a ranking of 1.0 designates the least desirable category value. If, in the user's judgment, the category value is deemed unacceptable, assigning a large negative integer, i.e. −1000, will produce an exclusion from further consideration of all cells possessing that category value.

The final and rightmost list in Factor-Category Scoring Table 22, FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 is a tabulation of the Weighted Factor Scores, which is the multiplied product of “% factor weight”/100 and “category score” for each category (“Weighted Factor Score”=(“% Factor Weight”/100) 33 “Category Score”). For example, in the case of “Layer 6 bottom current speed”, the Weighted Factor Score for the six category bins, 0.0-0.25 cm/sec, 0.25-0.5 cm/sec, 0.5-1.0 cm/sec, 1.0-2.0 cm/sec, 2.0-4.0 cm/sec, and 4.0-8.0 cm/sec is 0.45, 0.40, 0.36, 0.27, 0.18, and 0.09, respectively.

In the method of the present invention, “exclusion” factors, e.g. Bahama Platform, will have a symbol “E” appearing in the value list; this symbol value is automatically scored as −1000 in the Weighted Factor Score list. In similar manner, “Fixed score” factors, e.g. WNA 13 New York, utilize a formula which returns a score of 0.0 in the Weighted Factor Score list.

Tabular data from Factor-Weighting Table 20, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 are linked by means of conventional computer porting and internal data transfer circuitry to Factor-Category Scoring Table 22, FIG. 2 and FIG. 4, which, in turn, is linked in like manner to Weighting/Scoring Worksheet 24, FIG. 2 . It is here where the user can rapidly and dynamically modify both “% factor weight” (i.e. normalized factor weight) and “Category Scores” values, FIG. 4 . The user's new values are immediately linked back within the computer to both Factor-Weighting Table 20, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 and Factor-Category Scoring Table 22, FIG. 2 and FIG. 4, forming a dynamic feedback loop which refreshes all appropriate data therein, with the objective of improving resolution and accuracy of the method or generating a myriad of environmentally affected scenarios.

The contents of Factor-Category Scoring Table 22, FIG. 2 and FIG. 4, are further linked within the computer to Gulf of Mexico Database Array and Score Computation 26, FIG. 2 and FIG. 6, Western North Atlantic Database Array and Score Computation 34, FIG. 2, and Eastern North Pacific Database Array and Score Computation 40, FIG. 2, where the data are processed and prepared for subsequent mapping and graphic display. In like manner of the tables and worksheet configurations mentioned hereinbefore, these array and score computation algorithms and configurations are stored and manipulated within the memory configuration of the personal computer. It should be noted that the single set of scored criteria data from the Factor-Category Scoring Table 22 is applied to all three geographical regions of interest.

Following being combined with a particular geographic coordinate system, the scored criteria data are prepared for mapping. By way of an example to clarify this important process, output data from Gulf of Mexico Database Array and Score Computation 26, FIG. 2 and FIG. 6 is linked forward to Gulf of Mexico Spreadsheet Map 28, FIG. 2 . Prior to receiving data from Gulf of Mexico Database Array and Score Computation 26, FIG. 2 and FIG. 6, all cells for Gulf of Mexico Spreadsheet Map 28, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5, configured in computer memory, are empty of data, but have been initialized and are ready to receive data. FIG. 5 shows the empty matrix of cells representing the Gulf of Mexico in 1° cells. The ordinate is the latitude of the center of each cell; the abscissa is the longitude. Although shown here in abbreviated form, where the longitude extends from 80.5° W to 97.5° W and the latitude extends from 18.5° N to 30.5° N, the full-size matrix of cells representing the Gulf of Mexico features an additional border of 1° cells, extending from 79.5° W to 98.5° W and from 17.5° N to 31.5° N. Only cells initialized and uniquely identified by a number (in this example, 1-160) are active constituents of the map. Shaded cells and cells lacking such an identifying number represent either land mass or proscribed maritime areas, and, consequently, are excluded from any scoring calculations. In this Gulf of Mexico example, there are 160 active cells available to receive data.

The next step in the method of the present invention is to link the data from Factor-Category Scoring Table 22, FIG. 2 and FIG. 4, to the empty, initialized spreadsheet map. This step takes place in the Gulf of Mexico Database Array and Score Computation 26, FIG. 2 and FIG. 6 .

This step is known as “geo-referencing the cells”, where, for the first time, Category scoring data representing a particular multivariate scenario comprising environmental, economic, political and other variables are associated with a geographic coordinate system, forming a concomitant scenario topographical map.

A portion of the data involved in this geo-referencing step is shown in “Gulf of Mexico 1° Cell Weighted Factor-Scores and Cell Scores”, FIG. 6 . This figure illustrates three significant sets of data, (1) the scoring computations, (2) the array of factors, and (3) the distance look-up table.

The leftmost three columns tabulate the latitude, longitude, and numerical index identifier of each of the 160 cells, respectively. Adjacent to each cell identifier is the cell's associated numerical score (either zero or some positive value in the range, 1.0-5.0) and per-cent (%) score. The numerical score equals the factor row summation of the values for all the factors in the row corresponding to a particular cell. For example, the numerical score for cell numerical index #45 is 3.65, the result of a factor row summation which includes, 0.15, 0.14, and 0.449991. The acceptable score range extends from 1.0 to 5.0; all other values, including zero signify exclusion of that particular cell. Since the acceptable range is 1.0-5.0, the related % score is (score-1.0)/(5.0-1.0). For example, the normalized score for cell numerical index #45 is 66.25%.

The central portion of FIG. 6 shows a portion of the array of factors, with the factor index identification number (0-299) appearing as column headings. These column headings correspond to aforementioned factor index identification numbers and shown previously in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 . That is, scorable factors are indexed and identified in the range 1-99; exclusion factors are indexed and identified in the range 101-199; and fixed score factors are indexed and identified in the range 201-299. The factor index identification number zero (0) is reserved for testing purposes. Any negative number in this array of factors will designate the associated cell as excluded. Finally, in the rightmost column is a tabulation of the calculated Great Circle distance from the port of New Orleans to the center of each cell, e.g. for cell numerical index #45, the distance is 323.434 nautical miles (nm).

The result of these calculations is illustrated in the “filled” Gulf of Mexico Spreadsheet Map 28, FIG. 2 and FIG. 7 . Here is the full matrix of cells representing and mapping the Gulf of Mexico, where the longitude extends from 79.5° W to 98.5° W and the latitude extends from 17.5° N to 31.5° N. All shaded cells are excluded. The darker shaded cells represent land mass (in this example, the land mass cell value is assigned to be −18); the lighter shaded cells represent proscribed ocean areas outside the region of interest (proscribed area cell values are assigned to be zero). Although not included in the immediate scoring process, these excluded cells must be assigned either a zero or negative number for subsequent visual depiction of the three dimensional (3-D) concomitant scenario topographic mapping of the ocean region of consideration, FIG. 8 .

As graphically displayed in FIG. 7, of the 160 active candidate cells for the Gulf of Mexico region of interest, only those 13 cells featuring positive numbers (60, 60, 66, 66, 66, 69, 69, 58, 54, 67, 71, 71, and 58) satisfy the quantified criteria of Factor-Weighting Table 20 for the particular scenario concerning possible sites for waste disposal and isolation in the abyssal depths. The cell with geographical coordinates, 25.5 North and 93.5 West, corresponds to cell #45 and features a truncated value of 66, as shown previously in FIG. 6 . Visual presentations of this type can be usefully applied to issues regarding waste disposal in the deep ocean abyssal plain.

Utilization of commercially available three-dimensional graphics software, Gulf of Mexico 3-D Map Display 30, FIG. 2 and FIG. 8 produces yet another and more easily comprehended topographical rendering of a scenario concerning acceptable abyssal plain sites for waste disposal and isolation. The 3-D visual depiction, FIG. 8, is the preferred means for illustrating the complex concomitant scenario topography associated with waste disposal issues.

Besides providing mapping data to Gulf of Mexico 3-D Map Display 30, FIG. 2 and FIG. 8, the “filled” Gulf of Mexico Spreadsheet Map 28, FIG. 2 and FIG. 7 further provides data to Combined Scores and Statistics 32 for subsequent linkage to a commercially available mapping program which can visually depict a single concomitant topography map for a plurality of regions.

In a manner similar to Gulf of Mexico Database Array and Score Computation 26, FIG. 2 and FIG. 6, Western North Atlantic Database Array and Score Computation 34, FIG. 2 processes input data, links the processed data to Western North Atlantic Spreadsheet Map 36, which links to Western North Atlantic 3-D Surface Map Display 38, FIG. 2 and Combined Scores and Statistics 32, FIG. 2 .

Likewise, in a manner similar to Gulf of Mexico Database Array and Score Computation 26, FIG. 2 and FIG. 6, Eastern North Pacific Database Array and Score Computation 40, FIG. 2 processes input data, links the processed data to Eastern North Pacific Spreadsheet Map 42, which links to Eastern North Pacific 3-D Surface Map Display 44, FIG. 2 and Combined Scores and Statistics 32, FIG. 2 .

The combined concomitant scenario topography for waste isolation in three separate regions, Gulf of Mexico, Western North Atlantic, and Eastern North Pacific, is processed and assembled in Combined Scores and Statistics 32, FIG. 2 and shown in FIG. 9 . Cell desirability scores therefrom for isolation and containment of waste in the abyssal depths are shaded and vary from 34% to 89%. Unshaded cells denote areas where waste disposal in the abyssal depths is either undesirable or prohibited (excluded).

Waste Dispersal

Using the same rationale and regions in Example 1, a modest change in weighting and scoring effected at Weighting/Scoring Worksheet 24 can quickly and easily produce a scenario for waste disposal and subsequent dispersion instead of containment. The combined map for waste dispersion in the Gulf of Mexico, Western North Atlantic, and Eastern North Pacific regions is shown in FIG. 10 . Cell desirability scores for disposal and subsequent dispersion of waste in the abyssal depths are shaded and vary from 21 % to 75%.

Logistics

A further example of the utility of the present invention explores the issue of logistics of waste disposal from major United States ports. In this example the ports are New York, New Orleans, and Los Angeles for the regions Western North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Eastern North Pacific, respectively. The combined scenario map for logistics of waste disposal in the Gulf of Mexico, Western North Atlantic, and Eastern North Pacific regions is shown in FIG. 11 . Cell desirability scores for logistics relevant to waste disposal in the abyssal depths are shaded and vary from 15% to 90%.

FIG. 12 depicts the factor weighting table used to generate the concomitant scenario topography for the isolation scenario illustrated in FIG. 9, the dispersal scenario illustrated in FIG. 10, and the logistics scenario illustrated in FIG. 11 .

Although only a few exemplary embodiments of the invention have been described in detail above, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that many modifications are possible in the exemplary embodiments without materially departing from the novel teachings and advantages of this invention. Accordingly, all such modifications are intended to be included within the scope of this invention as defined in the following claims.