Report from EPPR Workshop on Emergency

2012
Report from EPPR Workshop on Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and
Response in Kirkenes, Norway - June 5 – 7, 2012
Cover photo: Arctic Council Secretariat
__________________________________________________________________________
Contents
Contents ................................................................................................................................ 2
0.
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4
2.
Opening ......................................................................................................................... 4
3.
Information about the project “Development of Safety Systems in implementation of
economic and infrastructural projects ............................................................................. 4
4.
Search and Rescue (SAR) ............................................................................................. 6
5.
Oil Spill Prevention ......................................................................................................... 8
6.
Oil Spill Response .........................................................................................................13
7.
Exercise Barents 2012 ..................................................................................................19
8.
Summing up/final discussion .........................................................................................21
10. Recommendations..........................................................................................................22
Annex 1 Agenda ...................................................................................................................23
Annex 2 List of participants...................................................................................................26
__________________________________________________________________________
0. Summary
The workshop is part of the Russian – Norwegian Arctic Council project Development of Safety
Systems in the Arctic. The objective of the workshop was to share information and knowledge on
Search and Rescue, Oil Spill Prevention and Oil Spill Response.
About 50 participants from (something missing!) attended the workshop.
There were presentations from governmental agencies, regional/local governments, the oil industry
and others.
The participants were observers at the annual “Exercise Barents” which was conducted June 6th.
2012 in the border area between Russia and Norway. The exercise included Norwegian and Russian
SAR and OSR units.
From the final summing up session of the workshop, the following statements are noted:
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
There is increasing activity in the Arctic. We are not prepared for the worst case scenario.
The situation in the Arctic will most likely change a lot in the future. We must consider
different scenarios.
International cooperation related to SAR and OSR is important and must be further
improved. We cannot be prepared enough and the involved parties must continue to share
information.
Reasonable Risk scenarios should be an important input for further improvement of the
preparedness. We need a Risk Assessment for the Arctic (several expressed this). All of the
future challenges must be brought to the table, e.g., how should we handle an incident
involving a large container vessel in the Arctic? We are not prepared for such a scenario.
Prevention must have the highest priority, e.g. routing, better weather services,
The SAR resources in the Arctic are too few.
Based on the final summing up and the different presentations, the recommendations from the
workshop are:
∗ To improve the understanding about the current and future risks in the Arctic, a Risk Analysis
(RA) for the Arctic should be carried out. The RA should be a basis for an
Arctic Emergency Preparedness Analysis. The RA should include a worst case scenario. The
RA should also include an accident with a container vessel.
∗ To further improve the preparedness and response in the Arctic, training and exercises must
be given the highest priority. The agreements on SAR and OSR should be exercised annually.
∗ Communication between responders during an incident is of most importance. The
challenges related to communication should be investigated and possible improvements
highlighted.
∗ The weather in the Arctic is challenging for responders and others. The improvement of the
weather services and ice information services should have the highest priority.
__________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
The workshop is part of the Russian – Norwegian Arctic Council project Development of Safety
Systems in the Arctic. The idea of this project is to share information and knowledge between the
Arctic states and industry to prevent accidents and to be prepared to respond to accidents in the
harsh Arctic climate.
The objective of the workshop was to share information and knowledge on Search and Rescue, Oil
Spill Prevention and Oil Spill Response to be better prepared for the increasing activity in the Arctic.
The outcome of the workshop will also provide useful input to two important ongoing Arctic Council
activities
- Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response Task Force
- Recommended Practices for the Arctic Oil Spill Prevention Project
The workshop covered the following areas:
- Search and Rescue (SAR)
- Oil Pollution Prevention
- Oil Spill Response (OSR)
There were presentations from governmental agencies, regional/local governments, the oil industry
and others. In addition, the participants were observers at the annual “Exercise Barents” which was
conducted on 6 June 2012 in the border area between Russia and Norway. The exercise included
Norwegian and Russian SAR and OSR units.
The workshop language was English, with Russian interpretation.
2. Opening
Mr. Johan Marius Ly, Director of the Department for Emergency Response in the Norwegian Coastal
Administration welcomed the participants to the workshop. He highlighted the increased risk due to
increased oil and gas activity and shipping in the Arctic.
3. Information about the project “Development of Safety Systems in
implementation of economic and infrastructural projects
Mr. Igor Veselov from Emercom of Russia referred to the Arctic Council as the most representative
organization, uniting the states having territory in the arctic zone, i.e. north of the Arctic Circle .
He highlighted important activities under this project, e.g. seminars, conferences and exercises.
In the presentation, he highlighted three exercises:
• An international exercise from September 30-October 3, 2008 in the eastern part of Barents
on the Permanent Marine Ice resistant Oil shipment Platform (SMLOP) of LUKOIL JSC in
Varandey. The exercise was held in three stages and included actions in different emergency
situations – fire, rescue people in the sea, oil skimming in the sea and on shore. There were
used 6 super ships, 4 small size vessels, 2 helicopters, 17 units of motor transport, 11
different types of skimmers, 5125 meters of red snake and other equipment. There were
observers from Norway, the USA, Sweden, Denmark and Canada that attended the exercise.
The general impression was that foreign observers were impressed by the scale and
complexity of the exercise.
__________________________________________________________________________
• Another important exercise was an aircraft emergency landing on Frans Josefs Land. During
the exercise SAR and rescue of survivors were important activities.
•
In the fall 2011, an exercise was held on the existing ice-resistant fixed oil-producing platform
of “LUKOIL” Oil Company in the Northern part of the Caspian Sea. This part of the Caspian
Sea is frozen in winter, and the experience can therefore be applied to the Arctic conditions.
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Search and Rescue (SAR)
4.1 Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and
Rescue (SAR) in the Arctic- have the SAR capabilities been improved?
Ms. Merete Jeppesen from JRCC Northern Norway informed about the Norwegian SAR service and
the recently signed Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue
(SAR) in the Arctic.
SAR is defined as “The organised activity in connection with immediate effort, to save human lives
from death or injuries caused by sudden accidents or danger.”
The JRCC in Bodoe coordinates incident north of 65 degrees north in the Norwegian territory. The
Norwegian SAR system is based on three important principles: cooperation, coordination and
integration.
She highlighted the important international conventions and agreements on SAR as the SOLAS
Convention, Safety Of Life At Sea, 1974, the SAR Convention, International Convention on Maritime
Search and Rescue, 1979, the ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention
ANNEX 12), 1944, the IAMSAR manual and the COSPAS - SARSAT system which is an International
satellite system detecting signals from C/S emergency beacons, 1984.
There are several SAR agreements in the northern areas. There are bilateral agreements, the SAR
Agreement within the Nordic Framework and the new Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical
and Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) in the Arctic.
The map on the next page illustrates the areas of responsibility of the Arctic SAR Agreement.
The Arctic SAR agreement is an overall government agreement that will serve as the framework
agreement. The Agreement adds guidelines and requirements for cooperation between the
countries. The agreement will promote cooperation before, during and after a joint rescue operation.
Finally, the countries will share information regarding available resources, communication, points of
contact etc.
Figure 1: Map
from the
Arctic SAR
Agreement
__________________________________________________________________________
4.2 Norwegian SAR service and(?) SAR assets in Northern Norway/the
Arctic
The SAR organization and function of Norwegian SAR services is based on provisions, general
guidelines and operational procedures given in international conventions on SAR, for both shipping
and aviation.
SAR operations are co-ordinated by two Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centres (JRCCs), the JRCC in
Stavanger and the JRCC in Bodø. This plan is valid for the Norwegian Search and Rescue Region (SRR).
The international SAR Cooperation is mainly based on IMO and ICAO conventions. The Norwegian
Search and Rescue (SAR) service is a fully integrated set of services directed by a single coordinating
organization responsible for all types of rescue operations (sea, land, air). These services are
performed through a cooperative effort involving governmental agencies, voluntary organizations
and private enterprises. Public institutions (national and regional) cover their own expenses, both
salary, administration and transport together with expenses related to the use of-, damage to-, and
loss of own equipment. This is based on the principles laid down in the parliament legislation no 86
(1961-62) Pt 1.3.
The SAR assets in the northern areas are mainly based on helicopters and coast guard vessels. SAR
helicopters are based in Bodø, Banak and in Longyearbyen. In addition, some of the coastguard
vessels are equipped with smaller SAR helicopters.
4.3 Russian SAR
Mr. Oleg Bury from State Marine Rescue Coordination Centre in Murmansk gave a presentation
about the Russian SAR organization and the SAR resources in the Arctic region of Russia.
The Northern Branch of the Baltic Salvage is included in the All-Russian system for prevention and
elimination of consequences of oil spill. The main objectives of the company’s operation are:
• Saving of Life at Sea
• Containment and elimination of emergency oil spills at sea.
Companies of this kind are established in all marine and coastal regions of the Russian Federation
and are under the jurisdiction of the State Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre (SMRCC).
The company owns a fleet of three rescue ships with unlimited navigation region, fitted with
equipment for elimination of oil spills and tanks for oily mixture. The ships are also fitted with diving
depots and equipment, towing winches and fire-fighting pumps for fire extinguishing on drilling rigs
and ships. He further showed pictures and gave details about the
SAR/Oil Spill Response vessels “AGAT”, “Svetlomor-3”, “Kapitan Martyshkin” and ”Markab”.
For SAR the KA-27SAR (Kamov or Nato Helix) and MIL-8Т are the most common helicopters.
The Russian Navy has also SAR/OSR vessels in the area (SB-523), in addition to the SAR vessels from
the Russian Coast Guard (CGV «Zapolyarie» и «Ural»). Aircrafts are also important for SAR and the
Maritime Patrol Aircraft IL-38 is important for this service. The aircraft is equipped with 4 emergency
rescue packages for discharge into the sea and «ERP-150» search equipment with the possibility of
targeting emergency vessels or crew in the water or rescue vehicles.
The organization "Murmanrybvod" has seven rescue ships, including one icebreaker type and one
small fire and rescue tug. The youngest ship was built in 1985 and the oldest in 1964.
"Murmanrybvod" has always one rescue boat on duty at sea in addition to one vessel in port, ready
to leave.
__________________________________________________________________________
5. Oil Spill Prevention
5.1 Arctic Council Project “Recommended Practices Prevention Oil
Pollution” (RP3 project)
Mr. Morten Mejlænder-Larsen from DnV gave a presentation about the RP3 project. DnV is
contracted by the project lead to develop the draft report.
In the 2011 Nuuk declaration, Arctic Council ministers called on EPPR and other relevant working
groups to develop “recommendations and/or best practices in the prevention of marine oil
pollution”.
The Working Group has identified a possible accidental oil spill from increased activities in the Arctic
related to shipping/maritime operations, oil & gas and land- based industry as the main concerns.
With this background, the EPPR Working Group initiated a project, Recommended Practices in the
Prevention of Marine Oil Pollution, the EPPR RP3 project.
The goal of the EPPR RP3 project is to identify practices proven or identified to be successful in
preventing marine oil pollution and which can be applied in an Arctic setting.
The project has focused on three key areas that could result in a major oil spill: offshore oil and gas,
maritime shipping and land-based activities. In addition, maritime monitoring has been included in
the project as an important preventive measure for monitoring and detection of accidental or
intentional releases.
The project was kicked off with a scoping workshop in Oslo, Norway on October 19-20, 2011. Around
70 participants from government agencies, permanent participants of Arctic Council, observers and
other relevant stakeholders from all the Arctic states attended the workshop and identified a number
of areas of interest which have formed the basis of this project.
The project is headed by Canada and Norway in co-operation with the Arctic Council’s Protection of
the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working group, and Det Norske Veritas (DNV). DNV is
responsible for a survey among selected operators with experience from or planning for Arctic
operations and for drafting this report. Finally, the results will be presented at the 2013 Arctic
Council ministerial meeting.
5.2 Update on the draft IMO Polar Code
Mr. Geir Høvik- Hansen from the Norwegian Maritime Directorate gave an update about the progress
on the IMO Polar Code.
The background for IMO’s work on the Polar Code is, among other things, climate change, reduced
ice coverage in the Arctic, increased tourism in Polar areas, large cruise ships with many passengers,
new ship lanes and cargo transport.
He referred to the current regulations in the Polar Regions which also are mandatory international
conventions that apply world wide. The conventions are:
SOLAS – Safety of Life at Sea
MARPOL – Prevention of Pollution From Ships
AFS – Anti-Fouling system
BWM – Ballast Water Management (Not yet in force)
__________________________________________________________________________
Convention on Load Lines
STCW – Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping
COLREG – Preventing Collisions at Sea
In addition, various mandatory Codes and voluntary guidelines were developed especially for polar
waters.
The Polar Code Process started when the process was approved as a new agenda item by MSC 86 in
May 2009, based on a proposal from Denmark, Norway and the US.
The Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE) coordinates the work. The work is carried
out in Working Groups, which meet at the DE sessions and Correspondence Groups in between the
DE sessions. Target Completion date for DE is 2014 (originally 2012).
He further presented the ongoing discussions related to the geographical demarcation of the Arctic,
the Polar Code format, content of the draft Polar Code and the plans to finalize the work.
The Navigation chapter has been submitted to NAV for consideration.
It is envisaged that ships operating in Polar Waters will fall into one of three categories, depending
on a broad concept of operations. The outline description below is a working draft intended to
provide a context for the ongoing work of DE and other sub-committees.
• A Category A ship has ice strengthening in accordance with the IACS Unified Requirements
for Polar Class ships, or an acceptable alternative. It will operate, with due caution, in severe
ice conditions;
• A Category B ship has some level of ice strengthening. It will operate, with due caution, in
first year ice conditions and will avoid (manoeuvre around) structurally dangerous types and
concentrations of ice.
• A Category C ship has no ice strengthening. It will operate, with due caution, only in very
new ice and will manoeuvre around structurally dangerous ice.
A standard SOLAS ship may operate in Polar Waters that are ice free with no special measures,
subject only to its ability to check and confirm on a regular basis that no ice is present along its route,
and that it is not subjected to extreme environmental conditions that will compromise the
functionality of its safety equipment.
Another important question is how to make the Polar Code mandatory. Presently, 3 options from
IMO’s legal division are presented, through SOLAS only, through MARPOL and SOLAS or a new
Convention.
During the development and the progress of the Polar Code there have been some challenges. The
challenges are listed below:
• Geographical limitations – possible new discussion
• Various opinions on additional risks/ need for additional (polar) requirements
• Various opinions of mitigation of additional risks/ need and level of details
• Various opinions on the need for additional environmental protection measures and how to
implement
• Existing vessels, which requirements shall apply
• Ice strengthening requirements/ thresholds
• Sailing permit system in addition to certification
5.3 Trends in international shipping incidents – future Arctic Shipping
In his presentation, Dr. Henk Renken from ITOPF, started with an overview of large ship accidents.
The largest is the MS Atlantic Empress accident which resulted in an oil spill of 279 000 metric tons.
He further continued with the possible ice free Arctic which may lead to an increased shipping traffic
in the Arctic. He highlighted some Arctic shipping facts:
• In 2011, the Northern Sea Route was open for 141 days until November, a record
• The product tanker PERSEVERANCE (GT: 42,661, Built: 2005) passed through the Bering Strait
as late as 18 November 2011
__________________________________________________________________________
• The largest bulk carrier SANKO ODYSSEY (GT: 40,142, Built: 2010) passed through the
Northern Sea Route in August 2011
• In August 2011, first ever suezmax tanker the VLADIMIR TIKHONOV (GT: 87,146, Built: 2006)
sailed from Norway to Thailand via the Northern Sea Route
• In 2010, 43 cruises ships berthed in Greenland ports, compared with 32 in 2009
The trade of oil has and will result in oil spills, although trends have proven that there have been less
spills from oil tankers in recent years. In 1975 there were about 25 spills from oil tankers and in 2010
there were 2 spills. Another trend is that spills from non-tankers have increased.
Spills from ship incidents will mainly lead to spill of bunker oil. Nevertheless, spills of crude oil, cargo
and HNS might occur.
Incidents in the past few years involving container ships have lead to large rescue operations. The
incidents with the container vessels Rena, Cosco Busan, MSC Chitra and MSC Napoli are examples of
such incidents. In addition to containers, these vessels also carried large amounts of bunker oil (2800
– 7800 metric tons of HFO). Another important issue related to container vessel incidents is that they
are very complex.
The presentation was finalized with a picture of the future of international shipping.
• Incidents involving container ships have the potential to be complex and require long
response
• Global trade in containerised goods is growing (2015 forecast 177.6 M TEU, compared with
68.7 M TEU in 2000)
• Container Vessels may carry large volumes of HNS; potential for public health issues
• Contingency Planning; pre-identify temporary storage areas, waste disposal sites, availability
of expertise/ equipment, contractors particularly in dealing with the chemical issues
• Ever larger vessels; the EMMA MAERSK has capacity of 13,800 TEU & ~17,000 m3 bunkers
• Maersk have recently ordered 10 new “triple E” container vessels – 18,000 TEU & 20,000m3 +
bunkers – they will be the world’s largest commercial vessels
5.4 The Barents 2020 project
Mr. Morten Mejlænder-Larsen from DnV gave a presentation about this project, which was launched
in 2007 and finalized in 2012. The presentation focused on the history and lessons learnt from the
project.
The Barents 2020 project was initially aimed at creating a dialog between relevant Norwegian and
Russian parties regarding safety of petroleum related activities in the Barents Sea. The aim was to
arrive at common acceptable standards for safeguarding people, the environment and asset values in
the oil and gas industry in the Barents Sea, including transportation of oil and gas at sea.
The philosophy behind the project was to bring the offshore experience from the North Sea to the
Arctic, and that risk reduction must take place through prevention.
The different work packages of the Barents 2020 project are described below. During the
presentation, details about the different work packages were highlighted.
1. Co-ordination of deliverables
2. Prepare guidance document to ISO 19906 for design of offshore installations against ice loads
3. Conduct workshops on the use of risk assessment, based on ISO and IEC, for Barents Sea
installations
4. Prepare a guidance document to ISO 19906 on Escape, Evacuation and Rescue for the
Barents Sea
5. Prepare guidance to ISO 19906 for safe working environment for offshore activities in the
Barents sea
__________________________________________________________________________
6. Develop a regional standard for the Barents Sea to reflect MARPOL Special Area (SA)
requirements for discharges and emissions from oil and gas related ship traffic and offshore
units
7. DNV Project Management and project support
Important output from the Barents 2020 might be useful input for the EPPR RP3 project.
5.5 The ICEMAR project and the role of satellite technology in the Arctic
Mr. Richard Hall from the company KSAT in Norway gave a presentation about the role of
satellites in the Arctic. Initially he stated that satellites are a major contribution to monitoring the
vast ocean areas.
Experience from many years has proven that satellites have been used to detect oil spills.
Satellites in combination with surveillance aircrafts have proven to be a good tool in the
prevention of oil spills.
The AIS-sat1 satellite and the combination of satellite images with AIS have also proven to be a
powerful combination. In the presentation several examples of oil spills detected by satellite
were presented.
In the future there are plans for near-real time images from satellites. Real time images might be
a very useful tool to prevent incidents. The combination of satellite information with information
from other sources is important. The Barents Watch project in Norway has proven that this
combination can create several opportunities.
The goal of the Icemar project is to improve access to ice information for ships operating in ice with
the focus on safety. The Icemar scenario was illustrated by a scenario when a user sends a request
about information required, location and duration, display equipment and communications.
Based on this the user will receive a list of available relevant products. The user will select required
products..
5.6 Risk Analyses as a basis for prevention and contingency planning.
The BRISK and BE-AWARE projects
Mr. Peter Poulsen from Denmark informed about the just finalized Brisk project in the Baltic and the
recently launched BE-AWARE project in the North Sea.
The overall aim of the project Sub-regional risk of spill of oil and hazardous substances in the Baltic
Sea (BRISK) is to increase the preparedness of all Baltic Sea countries to respond to major spills of
oil and hazardous substances from shipping.
BRISK/BRISK-RU projects covered all maritime areas of the Baltic Sea and focused on major spills, i.e.
spills that require assistance from several neighboring countries. The sub-regional approach is costefficient as countries can share their resources to build a common pool of response vessels and
equipment sufficient for a given sub-region.
The background for the BRISK project was among other things the increased transport of oil products
in the Baltic. The work packages of the BRISK project were:
WP0 Preparation Activities
March 2008 - October 2008
WP1 Project Management
October 2008 – April 2012
WP2 Communication
October 2008 – April 2012
WP3 Risk Assesment
January 2009 – September 2011
WP4 Agreements
January 2010 – October 2010
WP5 Investment Plans
Juni 2011 – January 2012
WP6 Closure Period
January 2012 – April 2012
__________________________________________________________________________
BRISK included an integrated risk analysis system for strategic decision support. He further
highlighted the different elements in the project and especially the results of the response scenarios.
The risk assessment model takes into account, e.g., the existing risk reducing measures such as
various ship reporting systems and routing measures, and a prognosis of future traffic. The major
maps produced within the risk assessment, including the ship traffic mapping, modeled risk for enroute collisions, crossing collisions and groundings as well as mapping of sensitivity towards oil, are
available on the project website.
The projects have identified possible ways to effectively reduce the risk of spills including their
impact and damage to the environment. These measures are specific to each sub-region of the Baltic.
The measures include upgrading equipment for containing and recovery of oil from the sea surface,
including in bad visibility and from ice, and tools to reduce the risks such as carriage of electronic
maps by all ships operating in the Baltic Sea.
The BE-AWARE project (Bonn Agreement: Area-wide Assessment of Risk Evaluation)
The background for the project is a decision from the Bonn Agreement Ministerial Meeting 2010 (The
Dublin Declaration and the the Bonn Agreement Action Plan (BAAP)
Risk assessment in the Greater North Sea is necessary due to such developments as increased traffic
and vessel size, increased transports of oil and HNS, new maritime uses and activity, energy
generation, ocean aquaculture, marine protected areas and increased storminess.
The project will be finalized in the end of 2013.
__________________________________________________________________________
6. Oil Spill Response
6.1 The Goliat oil field and oil spill response
Mr. Erik Darell Holand from the oil company ENI gave a presentation about the Goliat oil field and oil
spill response. In the presentation he highlighted the following topics: the Goliat Development
Project, oil spill preparedness challenges and oil spill preparedness.
The Goliat field is situated in the Barents Sea, see map below.
The production is expected to start in Q 4 2013. As an illustration of the Goliat project, a movie was
shown.
In Norway, the operator has the overall responsibilities and see-to responsibilities for the operations.
This includes emergency preparedness, environmental Impact Analysis, Emergency Preparedness
Analysis and the dimensioning of preparedness resources.
The operator’s challenges related to the Goliat project can be listed as:
Close to coast – short drifting time to shore
Environmental sensitive areas
Distances and limited infrastructure
Long response time for resources from the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea
Limited access to personnel resources
Light conditions and icing during winter season
Conditions given in the Plan for Development and Operation by the Parliament
ENI has invested a lot of resources to improve oil spill preparedness related to the Goliat field. The
key areas for improvement have been open sea emergency preparedness (Barriers 1 and 2), coastal
and shore zone preparedness (30-40 fishing vessels in permanent preparedness and new task force/
operational groups in the coastal and beach zone) and infrastructure, logistics and remote sensing.
The presentation also included information about offshore preparedness during production drilling.
6.2 Marine oil spill response system of the Russian Federation in the
Arctic region
Mr. Nikolai Tarantin from State Marine Pollution Control, Salvage & Rescue Administration of the
Russian Federation (SMPCSA) held this presentation.
__________________________________________________________________________
As an introduction he presented the system for prevention of marine oil spills as a part of the
integrated system of the prevention of emergency situations in Russia.
The State Marine Pollution Control, Salvage & Rescue Administration of the Russian Federation
(SMPCSA) is under the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation. SMPCSA is responsible for
among other things the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres (MRCC) and the Baltic Salvage and
Towage Company (BSaTC). BSaTC coordinates several branch offices with responsibility for oil spill
response and sea rescue.
There are many activities in the Northern areas that might lead to oil spills. Because of this, SMPCSA
has made a lot of efforts to strengthen their capacity to handle spills or other situations in the Arctic.
New and improved bases are established in Port Provideniya, Port Pevek, Port Tiksi and Port Diskon,
in addition to already existing bases.
A federal development program of the Russian transport system 2010 – 2015 has been launched to
build the new generation of oil spill combating vessels. These are 4 large (7 Mw) multipurpose
emergency rescue vessels, 4 medium (4 Mw) multipurpose emergency rescue vessels and 6 boomdeployment vessels, which already are built.
International cooperation is important for Russia as for other countries. In the Arctic the bi-lateral
agreements with Norway and the USA are important. In the Baltic, the Helcom-Convention is the key
agreement.
Illustration: Multifunctional salvage and rescue vessel with power 7 MW Source: SMPCSA
6.3 Oil spills in Ice and Arctic Logistics; a presentation of two projects
in the Arctic Ocean Scientific Programme
Mr. Rune Rautio from the company Aqvaplan niva in Norway held this presentation. Aqvaplan niva is
a company dealing with research and consultancy related to aquaculture, marine and freshwater
environment.
Aqvaplan niva has produced several reports related to Petroleum transport from the Russian part of
the Barents Region. In 2011 they finalized a report related to logistics in Northern Norway and
Northern Russia. This is primarily related to transport of raw material from this area to the markets in
Europe, North America and Asia.
Further, he highlighted the five flagship projects in the High North Research Centre for Climate and
the Environment (Fram Centre) which was launched recently. The projects are:
1. Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, technology and agreements
2. Effects of climate change on sea and coastal ecology in the Arctic
3. Ocean acidification and ecosystems effects in northern waters
4. Effects of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems, landscapes, society and indigenous
peoples
__________________________________________________________________________
5. Hazardous substances – effects on ecosystems and human health
Aqvaplan niva have also together with Sintef launched a feasibility study – Oil in Ice. In this
project they will summarize the knowledge status regarding oil in ice, identify knowledge gaps and
identify priority areas for research within the Fram Centre through the following years. The focus
areas for the study are absorption and weathering, detection and biological effects.
Below is a list of some relevant projects and research programmes in which Aqvaplan niva is
involved:
• Simulation of consequences from future maritime traffic through the Barents Sea
• A-LEX: Regulating Arctic Shipping
• Oil Mineral Aggregates (OMA), a new natural technique to remove oil from sea ice
• BARents Sea CUTtings research initiative
• SAARP (Statoil Arctos Arctic Research Program)
• ASBD (Arctic Seas Biodiversity, Eni)
• Joint Industry Project (JIP) Norwegian Former Disputed Area
• The Barents 2020 project
The ARCTOS Research Network was also highlighted. ARCTOS is a global partnership of 36 institutions
around the Arctic. The funding of projects is mainly from EU programs, the Norwegian Research
Council, as well as US, Russian and Canadian research funds and oil companies.
6.4 OGP Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Program
(JIP)
Dr. James Hall from ExxonMobil Exploration Company gave a presentation about the Arctic Oil Spill
Response Joint Industry Project. The background for the project is increased focus on oil exploration
in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Unique aspects of Arctic exploration present different challenges for
environmental protection, and the last few decades have seen significant advances in Arctic spill
prevention and response technology.
Examples of oil spill research projects in the last years have been SINTEF Oil in Ice JIP, OHMSETT
Dispersant Work and Spill Detection/Monitoring Trials.
The Joint committee of IPIECA and API formed to review past research on spills in ice, identify
advances, and prioritize and determine research needs. This resulted in a recommendation to
establish a new JIP to undertake research in seven key areas:
– Dispersants
– Environmental Effects
– Trajectory Modelling
– Remote Sensing
– Mechanical Recovery
– In Situ Burning
– Experimental Field Releases
The objectives of the new JIP are to create an international research programme to further enhance
knowledge and capabilities in the area of Arctic oil spill response (OSR). The industry will also raise
awareness of existing industry OSR capabilities in the Arctic region.
By working together, the JIP companies are ensuring the most efficient use of resources, funding and
expertise to improve technologies and methodologies for Arctic OSR.
There are 9 participating companies in the JIP. They are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni,
ExxonMobil, North Caspian Operating Company, Shell, Statoil and Total.
__________________________________________________________________________
The project is managed by a steering committee with members from each JIP member. The
programme manager is Mr. Joseph Mullin. As a part of the project, a communication team has also
been established.
Several sub-projects will be established under the seven key-areas.
One recent development under the project is the SL Ross State of the Art Report-A compendium. This
report describes the tools available for use by industry for response to an oil spill in the Arctic. The
report is published on the API website:
http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/EHS/Clean_Water/Oil_Spill_Prevention/Spill-Response-in-theArctic-Offshore.ashx
In addition, a summary document and 6 fact sheets will be developed and published soon.
In his summary, Dr. Hall highlighted the following topics:
• There have been significant advances in Arctic spill prevention and response technology
• This is an international research programme to further enhance industry knowledge and
capabilities in the area of Arctic OSR
• To raise awareness of existing industry OSR capabilities in the Arctic region
• Working through a JIP ensures most efficient use of resources, funding and expertise to
improve technologies and methodologies for Arctic OSR
6.5 Bilateral and multilateral agreements on oil spill and HNS response
– status and the way forward
Ms. Elisabeth Guttormsen, Senior Adviser in the Norwegian Ministry for Fisheries and Coastal Affairs,
gave a presentation with the title “Bilateral and multilateral agreements on oil spill and HNS
response - status and the way forward”.
The national principles for counter pollution in Norway are that the preparedness and response
system must be dimensioned on the basis of activities and risks. The private companies are obliged
to provide their own preparedness and response systems. The public response system can be
activated when the source is unknown or the responsible polluter is unable to respond properly. The
public system in Norway is based on the municipalities and the Governmental system.
In situations were spills cross borders or there is a catastrophic spill, countries may need
international assistance.
International cooperation and agreements facilitate efficient response to cross-border spills,
requests, reception and use of assistance. Through the agreements, procedures have been
established for notification, requesting assistance, coordination and cooperation in operations,
border crossing of equipment and personnel, and reimbursement of costs. The learning through
exercises and other formal and informal channels for information exchange are important.
Through IMO, the states have agreed upon the International Convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC) from 1990 and the OPRC – HNS Protocol from
2000. Relevant bi- and multilateral agreements in the North include the Bonn Agreement, the
Copenhagen Agreement, the Norway – Russia Barents Sea Agreement, the NorBrit Plan, Helcom
Convention in the Baltic, the US – Russia agreement in the Chukchi Sea, agreements between US –
Canada and Canada – Denmark/Greenland.
In the Ministerial meeting in Nuuk in 2011, the Arctic Ministers agreed that they would initiate an
international instrument on Arctic marine oil pollution preparedness and response. Based on this
decision, a Task Force has been established. The TF is expected to report to the 2013 Ministerial
meeting in Kiruna, Sweden.
The status of the negotiations as of June 2012 is that the countries have agreed upon a binding
agreement. The agreement will apply to oil pollution incidents that occur in or may pose a threat to
marine environments. The geographical scope is expected to include the national jurisdiction of each
of the parties and will include a “southern limit”. The agreement will apply, to the extent consistent
with international law, in areas beyond the jurisdiction of any state.
An Operational Manual (appendix) will be developed by the EPPR working group.
__________________________________________________________________________
Through international cooperation and international agreements, the affected countries are better
prepared to assist each other and cooperate efficiently in case of an incident. This is based on the
fact that a notification system, defined contact points, routines for requesting assistance, a system
for cooperation and communications in operations and a system for information exchange have been
established. In addition, the countries are familiar with each other’s organization, operational policy,
response equipment and experts.
6.6 Norwegian governmental oil spill response capabilities in Northern
areas
Mr. Johan Marius Ly, the Director of Department for Emergency Response in the Norwegian Coastal
Administration, held this presentation.
The Norwegian Coastal Administration is an authority under the Ministry for Fisheries and Coastal
Affairs. Its main tasks are coastal management and infrastructure, maritime traffic safety and
monitoring and preparedness against acute pollution.
The preparedness related to acute pollution is regulated in the Pollution Control Act. In the act, three
levels of responsibility are described:
• Private industry preparedness, e.g. offshore oil industry
• Municipal preparedness
• Governmental preparedness. The Norwegian Coastal Administration is the responsible
authority for governmental preparedness and is entitled to take over operational control
from any polluter.
Further, Mr. Ly highlighted the geographical area of responsibility, national agreements and
partners, international agreements and pollution response cooperation.
The future risk for acute pollution in the Northern areas/Arctic is based, among other things, on
increased maritime traffic, ship to ship transfer in Norwegian waters and oil production and
exploration in Norwegian and Russian waters.
The preparedness has to pillars, risk reduction and the damage reduction. In the presentation, he
listed several risk reducing measures that have been implemented in the Northern areas of Norway
and Svalbard. Examples of important risk reducing measures are sea-routing, surveillance, Vessel
Traffic Services (VTS), pilot services, emergency towing, ports of refuge and fuel oil restrictions.
Important preparedness measures are the bi- and multilateral agreements, contingency plans, the
spill response resources, training and exercises. Response in the Arctic presents a challenge to
responders because of the harsh climate, low temperatures, open water/ ice conditions, shoreline
types and distances, all of which create logistic challenges. In the Arctic, several response options
might be relevant, and the responders must thus be familiar with mechanical response, burning,
dispersants and shoreline clean-up. Another important method to reduce the consequences is
emergency off-loading equipment. The Norwegian Coastal Administration has invested in several
emergency off-loading packages the last years.
In his conclusion, Mr. Ly highlighted the importance to continue upgrading Norwegian governmental
preparedness and to maintain and increase the oil spill response cooperation in the Barents Sea.
6.7 WWF- training of volunteers for oil spill response
Ms. Ida Ulseth from WWF Norway held this presentation.
The existing oil spill contingency plan in Norway allows only a limited time frame to remove oil from
the ocean before it reaches the shore. Normally, less than 20% of the oil is collected from the source.
In an attempt to improve clear-up rates, WWF has launched Clean Coast! – WWF’s voluntary oil spill
response.
__________________________________________________________________________
The consequences of an oil spill can be devastating for both the environment and local communities.
Most parts of Norway lack the capacity to perform large clean-up operations if and when the oil
reaches the shore. Previous experience has shown that the more people take part in cleaning up
after the oil spill, the less damage the oil will do.
Through training and organizing the volunteers, the Clean Coast! project contributes to
strengthening oil preparedness in Norway and makes new resources available in case of an oil spill.
This project builds on earlier experiences from voluntary oil spill work following the Prestige accident
off the coast of Spain, and similar training completed in Finland and Russia. In Finland, 6300
volunteers are registered and in Russia approximately 250.
The project's main objective is to reduce the environmental and economical consequences of an oil
spill along the Norwegian coastline, by establishing a competent and operative unit of committed
volunteers. The project shall also contribute to new capacity that would not otherwise be available.
Oil spill training courses are arranged for volunteers in selected cities and towns along the Norwegian
coast. The first course was held in Fiskebøl, Lofoten in November 2005. Since then, 21 courses have
been conducted and about 495 volunteers have been trained for oil spill response.
The courses are conducted in close cooperation with the Norwegian Coastal Administration and
NordNorsk Beredskapssenter, which has many years of experience in the field. Several partners have
sponsored the training courses.
Volunteers trained through the Clean Coast project have been involved in several spills inn Norway.
Examples are the “Server” incident in January 2007, when a cargo ship ran aground off Fedje. Around
370 tonnes of heavy bunker oil (type IFO 380) leaked and spread over a distance of 170 km.
Volunteers were also involved in the clean up after the grounding of the cargo ship “Full City” off the
city of Langesund in Telemark county.
Photo: WWF Norway
__________________________________________________________________________
7. Exercise Barents 2012
7.1 Planning and preparation
The Exercise Barents concept is based on the Russian - Norwegian rescue agreement concerning
rescue of persons in distress and danger in the Barents Sea – dated 4 October 1995, and the
Agreement on Oil Spill Response in the Barents Sea between Norway and Russia from April 1994.
The Joint Rescue Coordination Center (JRCC) North Norway was responsible for the planning of the
2012 exercise, and conducted the exercise in cooperation with the Norwegian Coastal
Administration.
From Russia, the Maritime Rescue Coordination Center (MRCC) Murmansk and the Northern Branch
of BSTC were responsible for the coordination on the Russian side.
The initial planning meeting was held in Bodoe, Norway in March 2012. Representatives from both
countries participated. The protocol from the meeting gives the aim and objectives for the exercise.
In the protocol, details about the exercise are also described.
The main exercise objectives were to practice the cooperation between Norway and Russia related
to SAR and oil spill response.
As a minimum, the objectives included the following:
∗ Coordination of scenarios (SAR operations and oil spill response)
∗ Communication and information exchange
∗ Clearance for Russian aircraft, vessels and other relevant resources to enter into
Norwegian territory
∗ Clearance for Norwegian aircraft, vessels and other relevant resources to enter into
Russian territory
∗ SITREP format
∗ Notification by use of the POLREP system
The exercise area is illustrated in the map below.
Norway
Russia
__________________________________________________________________________
For the first time, the Norwegian – Russian OSR exercise included a beach cleaning operation. The
response included responders from the Northern Branch of BSTC, the Norwegian Coastal
Administration (NCA) and Norwegian municipalities in the area.
9.1. Exercise
The annual joint Norwegian-Russian emergency exercise Barents-2012 was arranged in the Varanger
Fjord in the border area between Norway and Russia.
The exercise consisted of two main parts, emergency help to a vessel in distress with subsequent
search and rescue drills, and clean-up of oil spills.
Seven vessels and four aircraft and helicopters from both countries took part in this year’s exercise.
Exercise Barents has been conducted annually since 1994.
The Exercise Barents is usually held in the waters of the Varanger Fjord on the border between
Norway and Russia. This year the drills for the first time included onshore beach cleaning in the
Jarfjord area close to the Russian border.
Due to restrictions on offshore sailing, the workshop participants were divided into two groups. One
group sailed with one of the offshore responding vessels to the exercise area (the tug Kraft
Johansen).
The other participants sailed to be observers at the beach cleaning exercise in Jarfjord. After
observing the exercise, the participants sailed to the city Vadsø for a bus transfer to Vardø, where
they visited the Vessel Traffic Services (VTS). The VTS has responsibility to monitor the Norwegian
territorial waters, including the Svalbard archipelago.
9.2 First impression report from the exercise
The notification related to oil spill response was conducted according to the agreed procedures. The
notification was through e-mail and telefax. Another important objective was obtaining clearance for
Norwegian and Russian vessels to enter each other’s territory. These procedures were updated as a
result of the 2011 exercise.
The cooperation at sea was according to the Norwegian – Russian manual for Oil Spill Response (OSR)
in the Barents Sea. The basis for the cooperation at sea is communication through the Norwegian
Supreme On Scene Commander (SOSC) and the Russian National On Scene Commander (NOSC).
Because of unforeseen circumstances, the Russian OSR vessels were not able to attend the exercise.
Because of this, the OSR exercise included only Norwegian vessels, even though communication was
tested between Norwegian and the Russian SAR vessels.
Nevertheless, the OSR crew and the Norwegian SOSC and NOSC achieved relevant training for all
participating units.
The overall impression was that the OSR exercise gave a good outcome for all participating vessels
and crews for the exercise at sea.
Pictures from the at sea exercise
Photos: Norwegian Coastal Administration
__________________________________________________________________________
Pictures from the beach cleaning exercise in Jarfjord
Photos: Norwegian Coastal Administration
8. Summing up/final discussion
Mr. Helge Munkås Andersen from the Emergency Response Centre of the Norwegian Coastal
Administration facilitated a summing up of the workshop. He asked the question, “what are the
lessons learned and are we prepared?” related to SAR, OSR and prevention of oil pollution. He asked
the participants to focus on improvements up to date and possible future challenges.
Below, a summary of the feedback from this session is presented.
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
Three useful days
There is increased activity in the Arctic. We are not prepared for the worst-case scenario.
International cooperation related to SAR and OSR is important and must be further
improved.
All of the future challenges must be brought to the table
We cannot be prepared enough!
Reasonable Risk scenarios should be an important input for further improvement of the
preparedness
Prevention must have the highest priority
Routing of vessels will most likely have preventive effects
Communication between the different involved parties during an incident will be challenging
The involved parties must continue to share information
The situation in the Arctic will most likely change a lot in the future. We must consider
different scenarios.
The SAR resources in the Arctic are too few
The weather services in the Arctic must be improved
We are not prepared for a large scale accident in the Arctic
We need a Risk Assessment for the Arctic (several expressed this)
Russia has improved their preparedness in the Arctic in the last years
We need to be better prepared for oil spills in the Arctic
Important to have knowledge of the behavior of oil and HNS in the Arctic
__________________________________________________________________________
∗ How should we handle an incident involving a large container vessel in the Arctic? We are
not prepared for this scenario.
10. Recommendations
Based on the different presentations in the workshop and the feedback in the last sessions, the
organizer recommends to:
• Improve the understanding about the current and future risks in the Arctic, and conduct
a Risk Analysis (RA) for the Arctic. The RA should be a basis for an
Arctic Emergency Preparedness Analysis. The RA should include a worst-case scenario.
The RA should also include an accident with a container vessel.
• Further improve the preparedness and response in the Arctic, training and exercises
must be given priority. The agreements on SAR and OSR should be exercised annually.
• Investigate and highlight possible improvements of the challenges related to
communication. Communication between responders during an incident is of most
importance.
• Give highest priority to improving the weather services and ice information services. The
weather in the Arctic is challenging for responders and others.
__________________________________________________________________________
Annex 1 Agenda
Tuesday, June 5
Time
09:00
09:15
Opening
Welcome/opening
Speaker
Status and development of safety
systems in the Arctic
Mr. Igor Veselov, Head of
Section, Emercom of
Russia
Mr. Johan Marius Ly,
Director, Norwegian
Coastal Adm.
Search and Rescue (SAR)
Chair: Ole Kristian Bjerkemo
09:45
Agreement on Cooperation on
Aeronautical and Maritime Search
and Rescue in the Arctic- have the
SAR capabilities been improved?
Merete Jeppesen, Joint
Rescue Coordination
Centre Northern Norway
(JRCC NN)
10:15
Exercise Barents - Lessons
learned from many years of
bilateral exercises
Joint Russian/Norwegian
presentation
10:45
Health break
11:00
Russian SAR organization.
SAR cooperation, coordination
and available resources in
northern areas.
Oleg Buryy
MRCC Murmansk
11:30
Norwegian SAR organization.
SAR cooperation, coordination
and available resources in
northern areas.
Merete Jeppesen Joint
Rescue Coordination
Centre NN
12:00
Exercise Barents 2012 – SAR
scenario
Merete Jeppesen Joint
Rescue Coordination
Centre NN
12:15
Lunch
Oil Spill Prevention
Chair: Kjetil Aasebø
13:15
Prevention of oil pollution: Arctic
Council Project Recommended
Practices Prevention Oil Pollution
Morten MejlaenderLarsen, DnV
__________________________________________________________________________
13:45
Update on the draft IMO Polar
Code
Geir Høvik Hansen
Norwegian Maritime
Directorate
14:15
Trends in international shipping
incidents – future Arctic Shipping
Henk Renken, ITOPF
14:45
Health break
15:00
The Barents 2020 project -
Morten Mejlander-Larsen,
DnV
15:30
ICEMAR and the role of satellite
technology in the Arctic
Richard Hall, KSAT
16:00
Risk Analyses as a basis for
prevention and contingency
planning. The BRISK and BEAWARE projects
Peter Poulsen, Bonn
Agreement BE-AWARE
project and Helcom BRISK
project
16:30
Exercise Barents 2012 – practical
information
JRCC NN and NCA
17:00
Closing
19:00
Dinner
Wednesday, June 6
Exercise Barents 2012
08:00
Departure Kirkenes
MS “Svenner II” Grense Jakobselv
Approx. 11:00
Arrival exercise area; Grense
Jacobselv
Approx 13:00
Departure Grense Jacobselv for
Vadsø included lunch at sea
Approx 15:30
Arrival Vadsø and transport by
bus to Vardø
Approx 16:15
Arrival Vardø – visit at Vessel
Traffic Services (VTS) in Vardø and
bus back to Vadsø
Approx. 18:30
Departure Vadsø for Kirkenes
King Crab dinner at sea
Thon hotel, Kirkenes
__________________________________________________________________________
Approx 21:30
Arrival Kirkenes
Thursday, June 7
Time
Oil Spill Response
Speaker
Chair: Ole Kristian Bjerkemo
09:00
First Impression Report from
Exercise Barents 2012
Representatives from
Norway and Russia
09:30
Eirik Holand, ENI
10:15
The Goliat oil field and oil spill
response
Russian governmental oil spill
response capabilities in Northern
areas
10:45
Health break
11:15
Oil spills in Ice and Arctic
Logistics; a presentation of two
projects in the Arctic Ocean
Scientific Programme
OGP Arctic Oil Spill Response
Technology – Joint Industry
Program (JIP)
11:45
12:15
Nikolai Tarantin, State
Marine Pollution Control,
Salvage & Rescue
Administration of the
Russian Federation
Rune Rautio, Aqvaplan
niva
James Hall, ExxonMobil
Lunch
Chair:
13:15
Bilateral and multilateral
agreements on oil spill and HNS
response – status and the way
forward
Elisabeth Guttormsen
Norwegian Ministry of
Fisheries and Coastal
Affairs
13:45
Norwegian governmental oil spill
response capabilities in Northern
areas
Johan Marius Ly,
Norwegian Coastal
Administration
14:15
WWF- training of volunteers for Ida Ulseth, WWF Norway
oil spill response
Health break
14:45
15:00
Panel discussion on SAR,
prevention of oil spills and OSR –
Are we prepared?
16:00
16:30
Summing up/conclusions
Closing
Facilitator: Helge MunkåsAndersen, Norwegian
Coastal Administration
__________________________________________________________________________
Annex 2 List of participants
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Name
Aasebø, Kjetil
Andersen, Helge Munkås
Andersen, Morten Sand
Autret, Yannick
Bambulyak, Alexei
Bjerkemo, Ole Kristian
Brækkan, Kjell Arild
Brynchik, Sergey
Buryy, Oleg
Dimmen, Arve
Dubois, Marc-Andrè
Evensen, John
Fremming, Maria
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Guttormsen, Elisabeth
Hall, James
Hall, Richard
Hansen, Geir Høvik
Heir, Geir Ove
Hjort-Larsen, Trond
Holand, Eirik Darell
Jacobsen, Per
Jeppesen, Merete
Kalinka, Olga
Kireeva, Anna
Korenev, Vasiliy
Kristiansen, Alf
Levit, Lev. V.
Lunde, Synnøve
Ly, Johan Marius
Mejlaender-Larsen,
30 Morten
31 Nilssen, Elin
32 Poulsen, Peter Søberg
33 Rautio, Rune
34
35
36
37
38
39
Refsnes Aase
Renken, Henk
Rinaldo, Øyvind
Ryzhov, Michail
Sarkov, Mihail
Shavykin, Anatoly
Company/Organization
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Interpreter
Total
Akvaplan-niva
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Inspector Murmansk of port Authority
MRCC Murmansk
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Arctic Council Secretariat
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Interpreter
Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal
Affairs, Norway
ExxonMobil
Kongsberg Satellite Services
Norwegian Maritime Directorate
JRCC North Norway
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Eni
Statoil
JRCC North Norway
Murmansk Marine Biological Institute
Bellona Murmansk
Northern Branch of Baltic Salvage
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Arctic Council Secretariat
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Norwegian Coastal Administration
DnV
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Health, Safety and Environment
Consult
Akvaplan Niva
Norwegian Society for the
Conservation of Nature
ITOPF
Norwegian Coastal Administration
Kola Environmental Center (KEC)
Northern Branch of Baltic Salvage
Murmansk Marine Biological Institute
E-mail
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
__________________________________________________________________________
[email protected]
40 Sollid, Nils Ove
IUA Midt- og Nord-Troms
[email protected]
41 Sørnes, Elisabeth
Norwegian Coastal Administration
[email protected]
42 Sveinungsen, Ståle
Norwegian Coastal Administration
State Marine Pollution Control, Salvage [email protected]
& Rescue Adm of the Russian
43 Tarantin, Nikolay
Federation
[email protected]
44 Ulseth, Ida Johanna
WWF Norway
45 Vaschenko, Pavel
46 Veselov, Igor
47 Vorobiev, Alexey
48
49
50
51
Westergaard, Nils
Yura, Ivanov
Zemlyanskaya, Yana
Øye, Kristin
Workshop participants
Photo: Arctic Council Secretariat
Murmansk Marine Biological Institute
Emercom of Russia
Russian Consulate in Kirkenes
Greenland Command of the Danish
Defence
Kola Environmental Center (KEC)
Exxon Neftegas Limited
Statoil
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]