Oil Pollution Response Research Articles

Impact analysis on the oil pollution response services of the European Maritime Safety Agency during the Covid-19 pandemic (2006–2020)

This study focuses on oil pollution response services performed by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). In this context, the annual reports on all drills and exercises published between 2006 and 2020 were analyzed in detail. The main goal of the study is to identify the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic that broke out in 2020 on the oil pollution response services carried out in the last 15 years. Due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic at the beginning of 2020 and the resulting travel restrictions, EMSA was unable to participate directly in drills, exercises and tests, and it audited the services remotely. As a result, the Covid-19 pandemic, has been seen disrupted the oil pollution response services of the agency.

The Arctic Council and “Law-Making”

The Arctic Council (AC) is a high-level international intergovernmental forum founded by the Ottawa Declaration of 1996. Its eight member states are Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States. Six organizations representing Arctic Indigenous peoples have “Permanent Participant” status. The AC is not an international organization based on a legally binding instrument, such as a treaty. It does not have the legal personality of an international organization under international law, which would enable it to develop legislation or conclude treaties with other subjects of international law. However, although the AC is not a legislative body it has been contributing to the development of international law as it relates to the Arctic. In particular, the Arctic Council was engaged in the development and negotiation of three legally binding agreements concluded by the eight Arctic states: the Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic (2011); the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic (2013); and the Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation (2017). By looking at the “law-making” activities of the AC and, specifically, the agreements concluded under its aegis, this article investigates how these agreements have shaped the nature and evolution of this forum. Then the article explores the potential for further legally binding agreements negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council.

A case study on oil pollution in Istanbul Strait: Revisiting 1994 Nassia tanker accident by utilising Potential Incident Simulation Control and Evaluation System (PISCES-II) simulation. What would be different in terms of response if Nassia accident happened today?

Turkey, with her two important straits, is geographically in the middle of one of the major transportation routes and will continue to face risks the oil tankers pose in those sensitive areas. This paper revisits the site of an oil tanker accident that occurred at the northern entrance of the Istanbul Strait in 1994. The aim of the study was to simulate the same accident in PISCES-II Simulator to compare the response actions of the time with the present capabilities. Effort is also made to understand how the negative impacts of an oil spill accident can be lessened. Therefore, the study is planned to set to cover two separate response scenarios for the identical oil spill incident, actually simulating the 1994 M/T Nassica accident. The results showed that oil pollution response in places with strong currents like Istanbul Strait needs special care to sea conditions as well as related assets.

To Cooperate or Not? Why Working Together is Essential in the Arctic

Abstract The Norwegian Arctic covers Svalbard, Bear Island, Jan Mayen and the Barents Sea. 80% of all shipping activities in the Arctic are within Norwegian territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone. To reduce the risk for accidents, the Norwegian authorities have established several preventive measures. Among these are ship reporting systems, traffic separation schemes in international waters and surveillance capabilities. If an accident has occurred and an oil spill response operation must be organized - resources, equipment, vessels and manpower from Norwegian and neighboring states will be mobilized. In 2015, the Norwegian Coastal Administration finalized an environmental risk-based emergency response analysis for shipping incidents in the Svalbard, Bear Island and Jan Mayen area. This scenario-based analysis has resulted in a number of recommendations that are currently being implemented to be better prepared for oil spill response operations in the Norwegian Arctic. Further, a large national oil spill response exercise in 2016 was based on one of these scenarios involving at sea and onshore oil spill response at Svalbard. The 2016 exercise, working within the framework of the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic between Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the USA (Arctic Council 2013), focused on a shipping incident in the Norwegian waters in the Barents Sea, close to the Russian border. Every year, as part of the Russian – Norwegian Oil Spill Response Agreement and the SAR Agreement in the Barents Sea, combined SAR and oil spill response exercises are organized. These are held every second year in Russia and every second year in Norway. There is an expected increased traffic and possible increased risk for accidents in the Arctic waters. In order to build and maintain an emergency response system to this, cooperation between states, communities, private companies and other stakeholders is essential. It is important that all actors that operate and have a role in the Arctic are prepared and able to help ensure the best possible emergency response plans. We depend on one another, this paper highlights some of the ongoing activities designed to strengthen the overall response capabilities in the Arctic.

Preparedness Decision Making in Offshore Oil and Gas - How much is enough?

ABSTRACT 2017-125: A key challenge in offshore oil spill contingency planning is determining how much preparedness is enough. In other words, planning what types and quantities of oil spill response equipment, resources, and expertise ought to be held in readiness and with what mobilisation and deployment times, just in case a major oil spill occurs. For the offshore oil and gas sector much of the information required to plan for a response to a major incident, such as the location of the spill source, oil type, potential release rate and volume, local climate and metocean conditions, and environmental sensitivities, is already known or can be predicted. In this paper a process for determining appropriate levels of preparedness for offshore oil spill risk is proposed and analysed outside the realm of specific national regulatory frameworks. It is suggested that the approach has validity across all jurisdictions and is consistent with the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC). The approach begins with detailed activity and location-specific oil spill risk assessment which produces information on response needs, which is subsequently used in strategic and tactical response planning processes to describe the necessary response equipment and resources. Once the response resource requirements are established, optimal preparedness arrangements can then be designed that are specific to the nature and scale of the risk and the availability/criticality of the required response resources.

THE INCOMING REGIONAL RESPONSE REGIME IN ASEAN

ABSTRACT After more than 20 years of work, the Southeast Asian region is poised to finalize a landmark Regional Oil Spill Contingency Plan (ROSCP), which will form a solid foundation for a new regional response regime. The development of a Regional Plan is a commitment made by the ten member states of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and is currently undergoing internal approval by the ASEAN Maritime Transport Working Group (MTWG) prior to implementation. The ASEAN member states committed to supporting the Regional Plan when the Transport Ministers of each member country signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the ASEAN Cooperation Mechanism for Joint Oil Spill Preparedness and Response on November 28, 2014. This MoU is the renewed and revitalized ASEAN Oil Spill Response Action Plan (OSRAP) that was signed in 1994 but was never implemented. The MoU is based on the principles of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC 1990), specifically Articles 5, 6, 7 and 10. The aim of this paper is to document the historical evolution of the Regional Plan, starting from the early days of ASEAN until 2015 where it was developed by the ten member states. More importantly, this paper will highlight the current status of oil spill preparedness and response regimes in the region and how these will likely integrate into the Regional Plan when it is finally adopted. This will offer a unique perspective on the dynamics of intergovernmental agreements and on the important role of the oil and gas industry in helping governments achieve their goals of preparedness and response through capacity building and other activities, including through the partnership between the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Global Oil and Gas Industry Association for Environmental and Social Issues (IPIECA) which manages the Global Initiative for Southeast Asia (GISEA) Programme.

Dispersant technical information sheets - compressing multifaceted toxicity and effectiveness data into a palatable form

Development of dispersant regulations by competent national authorities or appropriate government regulators forms a critical part of national oil spill contingency planning processes, in alignment with the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 1990 (OPRC Convention). Dispersant product approval requirements outline which dispersants are approved for use and how dispersants can be added to a list of approved dispersants by meeting the requirements of specific laboratory-based tests. The tests are designed to screen out least effective or more toxic dispersants and as such can only be used for comparative purposes only and not for assessment of actual impacts or efficiency at sea where mixing and especially exposure conditions would be very different. In many countries the testing requires 3 separate processes (effectiveness, toxicity and biodegradability) to be undertaken to ensure inclusion on an approved list. Outputs from these tests are sometimes in a format that can be difficult or misleading to present and/or interpret in a manner that can readily be disseminated to audiences varying technical and non technical knowledge. The authors have set about to produce a trio of new dispersant technical information sheets that distil and convey a wide range of common regulatory requirements and product specific results for three widely used marine dispersants. These sheets were developed to bridge the gap between the new IOGP-IPIECA Good Practice Guides and the API Fact Sheet (no.4) to provide the user with a specific level of detail on toxicity and effectiveness to aid in dispelling commonly held beliefs on dispersant exposure effects and to communicate the key messages on laboratory based tests. Target audiences for the information sheets vary from oil industry, government regulators and environmental protection agencies through to the global scientific/academic community, NGOs and the general public. The style and content are tailored such that complex information is presented in an easily absorbed manner (graphics and simple text) to ensure clarity, understanding and advocacy. The poster will present the background, approach and final outputs of the work. Information sheets will be displayed and made available to viewers as part of the poster presentation.

Exploring the potential of optical remote sensing for oil spill detection in shallow coastal waters--a case study in the Arabian Gulf.

Remote sensing provides an effective tool for timely oil pollution response. In this paper, the spectral signature in the optical and infrared domains of oil slicks observed in shallow coastal waters of the Arabian Gulf was investigated with MODIS, MERIS, and Landsat data. Images of the Floating Algae Index (FAI) and estimates of sea currents from hydrodynamic models supported the multi-sensor oil tracking technique. Scenes with and without sunglint were studied as the spectral signature of oil slicks in the optical domain depends upon the viewing geometry and the solar angle in addition to the type of oil and its thickness. Depending on the combination of those factors, oil slicks may exhibit dark or bright contrasts with respect to oil-free waters. Three oil spills events were thoroughly analyzed, namely, those detected on May 26 2000 by Landsat 7 ETM + and MODIS/Terra, on October 21 2007 by MERIS and MODIS, and on August 17 2013 by Landsat 8 and MODIS/Aqua. The oil slick with bright contrast observed by Landsat 7 ETM + on May 26 2000 showed lower temperature than oil-free areas. The spectral Rayleigh-corrected reflectance (R(rc)) signature of oil-covered areas indicated higher variability due to differences in oil fractions while the R(rc) spectra of the oil-free area were persistent. Combined with RGB composites, FAI images showed potentials in differentiating oil slicks from algal blooms. Ocean circulation and wind data were used to track oil slicks and forecast their potential landfall. The developed oil spill maps were in agreement with official records. The synergistic use of satellite observations and hydrodynamic modeling is recommended for establishing an early warning and decision support system for oil pollution response.

Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic

ABSTRACT This paper describes the background, approach, challenges and results of the development of the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic signed May 2013 by the eight member states of the Arctic Council at Kiruna, Sweden. The Arctic Council established an interdisciplinary task force in May 2011 to develop the Agreement. The Task Force included participants from the Arctic states, Permanent Participants of the Arctic Council, observers, industry representatives, and invited experts. The Task Force met five times over nearly a one year period. The objective of the Agreement is to strengthen cooperation, coordination and mutual assistance among the Parties on oil pollution preparedness and response in the Arctic in order to protect the marine environment by pollution from oil. The Agreement applies to oil pollution incidents that occur in or may pose a threat to any marine area over which a State whose government is a Party exercises sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction, including in its internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, consistent with international law. An Operational Guideline to the Agreement was developed by the Arctic Council's standing Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (EPPR) work group to provide tactical operating procedures for: notification; requests for assistance; provision of assistance; coordination and cooperation in response operations, including in areas beyond the jurisdiction of any State; movement and removal of resources across borders; procedures for conducting joint exercises and training; and a variety of other topics.

The IMO/IPIECA Global Initiative: Expanding Government and Industry Cooperation into New Regions

ABSTRACT As oil industry exploration and production activities and global marine shipping patterns have evolved, there is recognition of the potential for increased levels of oil spill risk in specific regions. In response to this, the IPIECA/IMO Global Initiative (GI) Programme is undergoing a period of broad expansion into regions where these increased activities may have the biggest potential impact. These same regions tend to show a need for improvement: consistency in the application of international legislation; effectiveness of regional agreements and national plans; and industry arrangements in order to minimize the likelihood of a significant incident and to mitigate the consequences. As is the case in the existing GI regions, the overall objective of any proposed new regional initiatives is to strengthen the cooperation between government and industry on oil spill related issues and to improve the capacity of countries to protect their marine and coastal environments and resources through the full implementation of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990 (OPRC). Three active and functional GI regional programmes have been established between 2003–13, covering (i) the Black Sea, Caspian Sea and Central Eurasia, (ii) West, Central and Southern Africa and (iii) South East Asia. The establishment and successes of these programmes are described, along with on-going work in this field in the Mediterranean Sea. As a result of increased oil and gas activity, IPIECA and IMO have identified East Africa as a “high priority” region for future GI activities. In 2013, IPIECA has commissioned a report to outline the existing level of oil spill risk from upstream and shipping activities and assess the existing preparedness and resource capabilities of government and industry within the region. The current status of this effort will be reviewed. The possible development of a GI programme for coastal China that would provide spill preparedness and response technical workshops in China will be reviewed with particular emphasis on a 2012 agreement between the Chinese Maritime Safety Agency, IPIECA, and the IMO.

DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND NATIONAL PLANNING IN THE CASPIAN SEA AND BLACK SEA

ABSTRACT The Caspian Sea and Black Sea regions have witnessed a growth in oil exploration, production and transportation activities, over a period of more than 15 years. Significant quantities of Caspian Sea region crude oil are shipped via Black Sea ports to markets in Europe. This development of the oil and shipping industries has brought a focus on ensuring an appropriate level of oil spill preparedness. Working under the umbrella of the ‘Global Initiative’ (GI) programme, the international community continues to support governments' efforts to build and implement national and regional systems to ensure effective response to major incidents. Recent progress in the Caspian Sea is described, notably the signing in 2011 by the five countries surrounding the Caspian Sea (the littoral States) of a regional agreement for co-operation in case of major oil spills - the so-called ‘Aktau Protocol’ to the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea (“Tehran Convention”). This Protocol is expected to enter into force in 2014 and will provide the legal basis for co-operation between the countries. A regional plan under the Protocol is in final draft and will provide the operational tool for implementation of regional cooperation and coordination procedures. The draft regional plan will be described, including its alignment to the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC) and the promotion of integrated response between governments and industry. National oil spill contingency plans provide the fundamental building blocks for the regional co-operation mechanism. Information will be presented on the recent developments concerning two national plans in the Caspian Sea, i.e. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. The role of international organizations and the oil industry in supporting the respective government's development of these plans and the opportunities available to assist their implementation is discussed. The on-going biennial Black Sea regional exercise activity is used to illustrate how such a programme facilitates and encourages sustainable oil spill preparedness at the regional level. Information will be presented concerning the 2011 exercise, the key lessons learned and potential developments of the exercise programme in the future.

BUILDING A LEGACY OF RESEARCH COORDINATION: A HISTORY OF THE ICCOPR FROM EXXON VALDEZ TO PRESENT DAY

ABSTRACT The response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill revealed a need for the federal government to take a new approach to oil pollution research. At the time of Exxon Valdez, at least seven departments and agencies were conducting research on different aspects of oil pollution preparedness, prevention, and response. However, these agencies lacked a consistent forum for coordinating their research. Section 7001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) changed that with the creation of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR). ICCOPR has continued functioning since 1991 but a lack of funding after the turn of the century reduced its effectiveness at coordinating research. After being reinvigorated in 2009, the ICCOPR has once again taken a leadership role in coordinating our Nation's oil pollution research investments. This paper discusses the history of oil pollution research leading up to the Exxon Valdez spill and how the ICCOPR member agencies came together to meet the mandates of OPA 90 and identify research needs in the wake of the Exxon Valdez and other spills. ICCOPR's approach to coordination among the ICCOPR members and collaborating with states, industry, and academia are described. ICCOPR's current status and initiatives are discussed.

The Global Initiative for South East Asia

ABSTRACT The South East Asian region's risk for oil spills has been increasing for the past three decades. This is primarily due to the ever-increasing shipping traffic, especially tankers, bringing oil from the Middle East to customers mainly in China, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. Another factor is the growth in the exploration and production activities of international and domestic oil companies. Of particular relevance is the expansion of oil exploration into remote areas where oil spill response preparedness is very challenging. Through the years, the lack of credible legal frameworks and the disjointed approach have hampered the development of the critical elements of a robust oil spill response system such as national oil spill plans, training and exercise programs, ratification of the relevant international conventions, and mutual aid or bilateral agreements between neighboring countries. The Global Initiative for South East Asia (GI SEA), a collaborative effort between IPIECA and IMO (International Maritime Organization), aims to provide the governments of the Southeast Asian countries with the facility to work together with the oil industry to improve the state of oil spill preparedness and response. GI SEA is a direct response for a credible and effective oil spill preparedness and response system that takes into account each country's individual requirements and the region's needs. The Programme is built on the core principles of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC) and implemented by the combined efforts of government and industry. This paper will present information on the current state of preparedness of selected South East Asian countries and the region as a whole. It will also describe the process of the formation of the GI SEA, including the major challenges of achieving consensus, building support, funding, and developing the individual country plans to suit their needs. It is also the intention to discuss the current and future activities of GI SEA.

Oil Spill Response Under the NCP and the NRF/Stafford Act - Incompatible Regimes?

ABSTRACT This paper examines oil pollution response during disaster situations when the Stafford Act is invoked by the President and the National Response Framework provides funding under ESF-10. The interrelationship between the National Contingency Plan (NCP), created by various pollution statues (Clean Water Act/CWA, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability/CERCLA, Oil Pollution Act/OPA) and the National Response Framework (NRF), created to deal with declared disasters under the Stafford Act, is becoming more fractious as time passes and the financial scope of disasters grows. The paradigm that existed when Hurricane Katrina made landfall in 2005 was not in evidence when Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy made landfall in the fall of 2012. The NCP envisions oil and chemical spill response in the context of a single spill, ideally with a known responsible party (RP), who takes action to respond to the spill. That RP is liable for costs and damages resulting from the spill. Action commences when the spill occurs and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) determines that federal action is required. If the federal funds (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund/OSLTF, CERCLA/SUPERFUND) are used, the federal government seeks cost recovery afterwards. The NRF envisions the federal government acting like a “no-fault insurance” regime, providing federal resources/funds to states when their capabilities are overwhelmed and their citizens require immediate succor. FEMA action commences when the State requests and the President approves aid. The states agree to a cost share – not to exceed 25% of Federal funding. There is no private party liability when actions are complete. The Homeland Security Act established the NRF, and operationally subsumes the NCP under it. However, the Homeland Security Act does not address what fund (Stafford or the pollution funds) will be used when a declared disaster occurs. Furthermore, the Stafford Act structure (State requests, Presidential approvals, Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Coordinating Officer (FEMA FCO) appointment, area surveys, mission assignments) becomes sclerotic in a large incident when compared to the much more nimble NCP process (spill, FOSC decision, immediate funding). The effect for Coast Guard (CG) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) field responders is to lean forward with NCP processes to protect the public. FEMA, faced with dwindling resources, observes this tendency and declines to provide disaster funding when the other federal funds “can be used”. The paper proposes a new paradigm for the “Makris-Suiter” Agreement of 1998 between EPA and FEMA. The opinions stated in this paper are the author's alone, and do not reflect the official policies of the United States Coast Guard.

The Oil Spill Response Fund – Four Decades of Success

ABSTRACT This paper examines the oil pollution response fund created by Section 311(k) of the 1972 CWA and then modified, culminating with the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) established by OPA. Could the CWA have been successful absent the provision for a federal fund? This Fund is now four decades old. Has it passed the “test of time”? Did it meet the goals set at its birth? Is it still relevant? Should it continue? CWA Section 311 and later OPA created a range of response tools to deal with oil and hazmat spills on the waters of the US. They established a public/private solution to spill response. Key components:An expectation that the spiller was responsible and liable to clean up the spill;The National Contingency Plan and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator/FOSC;Establishing expertise on “special teams”: the CG's National Strike Force and EPA's Emergency Response Team;An up-front trust fund available only to the FOSC that pays for removals if the responsible party (RP) does not step forward. The fund exists to:Pre-empt the RP from using delay as a response option, despite the law.Give the FOSC money to quickly hire private response companies, if the RP does not act or if the spill's origin is a mystery. Equally important, the CWA and OPA did NOT designate a government agency to “clean up” oil spills. Rather, the law envisioned private companies performing that role, paid for by the spillers/RP or the 311(k)/OSLTF Fund, under the oversight of the USCG or the EPA. It tasked the USCG with managing this Fund. The Fund achieved its results. The US has a robust private oil spill removal sector that responsible parties hire when needed. If an RP does not act, the CG and EPA FOSCs use the Fund to mobilize those same companies to remove oil spills on US waters. The US economy has grown, as has the number of oil spills reported. Cases each year requiring Fund use have not increased proportionally. Responsible parties continue to clean up their spills, as the CWA envisioned. The Fund retains its ability to respond simultaneously to major spills, even during Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon. In forty two years, the Fund has always been available for an FOSC directed removal. The opinions stated in this paper are the author's alone, and do not reflect the official policies of the United States Coast Guard.

Government and Industry Cooperation in Practice: Azerbaijan's Experience

ABSTRACT In recent times, Azerbaijan has seen the development of a significant modern offshore industry. The oil and shipping industries in Azerbaijan bring economic benefits but also give rise to the need for robust oil spill prevention and preparedness measures. Azerbaijan signed the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC) in 2004 and continues to develop and refine its national system of oil spill response. This paper discusses how the Azerbaijan government and key players in the oil industry have successfully worked together to achieve alignment in prevention, protection and response to major incidents. The implementation of the OPRC Convention is the responsibility of the Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES) of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Within the national response system a national oil spill contingency plan has been developed. The main offshore developments in the Caspian since the 1990s have been led by BP, as operator of a number of Production Sharing Agreements. BP has implemented comprehensive oil spill response plans and is working in partnership with MES to integrate this planning into the national framework. The oil spill management systems adopted by BP and the government are compatible and commensurate with guidance published by the International Maritime Organization in 2011. These aligned management systems allow for an effective Joint Command and coordination of resources in the case of a major incident. The key to building effective oil spill preparedness are a willing dialogue, integrated command structure, joint training and exercising and upgrade of hardware and information systems' software. The cooperation between government and BP relating to offshore risks strengthens the national capacity to deal with spills risks other than from offshore platforms, including the anticipated increase of oil shipments across the Caspian Sea. Furthermore, these efforts have been supported by international organizations and the regional industry initiative, OSPRI, of which BP is a member. The experience of Azerbaijan provides a model demonstrating how partnership between government and industry can achieve synergy and it confirms the importance of signing and implementing the OPRC Convention.

Promoting Integrated Preparedness and Response System from Regional to Local Level: The East Asian Region Experience

ABSTRACT The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC) has been in force since May 13, 1995. It is recognized as an important step towards promoting in...

Oil spill preparedness and response—has the paradigm changed?

Will 2010 in the future be seen as a year that marked the transformation of the approach by the oil industry to the way it manages the preparedness and response to major oil spills similar to the effect of the Exxon Valdez in 1989? The Exxon Valdez spilled 37,000 tons of crude oil in the Prince William Sound in Alaska. The spill had a profound impact on the local environment and the livelihoods of the local communities. The scale and impact of the incident led to significant regulatory changes in the United States with the introduction of the OPA 90 Act and, internationally, with the ratification and implementation of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (known as the OPRC Convention). The oil industry has since then undertaken many initiatives both on its own and in co-operation with governments across the world to reduce the occurrence and impact of oil spills. The positive aspect of this has been a major reduction in the number of major marine oil spills matched by increasing awareness and attention to minor oil spills. In recent years, meeting the growing demand for oil in both the developed and developing countries has led to exploration and production in ever more remote and deeper waters around the world. Has the industry adapted appropriately to the challenges of preparedness and response in these areas? The recent tragic loss of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico and subsequent massive and extended oil spill raises serious questions for both industry and government. This presentation will give an overview of the developments in the approach to oil spill preparedness and response since the Exxon Valdez, the challenges the industry and government face in the region and how the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may change the way we manage preparedness and response in the future.

EXPLORING A METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS COUNTRIES' PREPAREDNESS PRACTICES - OUTCOMES FROM A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EUROPEAN AND NORTH AMERICAN APPROACHES

ABSTRACT Background: Little research has been conducted with the aim to identify and compare countries’ best practices to fund preparedness and assess their ability to respond effectively to catastrophic spills. The authors believe that important lessons can be learned from this analysis. Aims: To undertake a comparison of the North American and European approaches to deal with oil spills for building a methodology which identifies best practices and assesses their level of preparedness. Methods’. Examination through case study analysis of contingency plans, legislation and past response to selected spills in countries with two different financing approaches: (a) the government-potential polluter approach and (b) government-only approach. The soft system methodology and capability maturity model are applied to ranking countries’ practices into levels of performance. Results: A general methodology which identifies three parameters to assess preparedness systems:Oil pollution legislation,Contingency planning practices, andResponse performance in past selected spills Each parameter establishes a set of best practices (indicators) which can be used to analyse and evaluate the countries’ systems in a qualitative manner. Limitations: Ranking of countries is not presented here. This should be undertaken in consultation with responders in order to reduce the authors’ subjectivity. Nonetheless, certain conclusions regarding preparedness systems in Europe may be drawn based upon the authors’ examination of the above parameters. Practical implications: The methodology provides a quick overview of the elements of preparedness which require more attention or where further steps should be taken to improve them. It backs current efforts for a wide harmonization of standards in oil pollution response. Conclusions: The development of best practices is better achieved in countries which are implementing: (i) risk based legislation and (ii) policies promoting the participation of the oil and shipping industries, either by means of expertise assistance and/or providing sustainable means of financing preparedness measures. Key words: “assessing preparedness,” “oil spills,” “maritime policy,” “contingency planning,” “potential polluter pays”.

BUILDING PREPAREDNESS IN ASIA: A PARTNERSHIP APPROACH

ABSTRACT The International Maritime Organization'S (IMO) “International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 1990” (OPRC 90) has been in force for more than 12 years now. IMO has been instrumental in setting up and providing both technical support and funding for various regional arrangements that provide the platform to achieve the objectives laid out by the Convention, both at the regional and national level. These efforts were sometimes carried out through the IMO/International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) Global Initiative (GI) Programme with strong support from national government and industry. Generally across Asia, national governments have to take preparedness to the provincial government level where the operational issues and challenges lie, often beyond the remit of existing technical support and funding from external organisations. The task of developing an integrated preparedness and response solution often involves inter-agency cooperation both at the national and local government level that may have competing priorities that outstrips available resources. A possible solution to this is through “Partnerships” among stakeholders, as the new paradigm that seeks to involve relevant stakeholders at the local provincial level where most of the practical challenges are. In East Asia Seas region, PEMSEA NETWORK OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR SUSTAINABLE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT (PNLG) formed on 13 December 2006 recognises that oil spill preparedness and response is an integral part of the sustainable coastal development. This provides a platform for such “Partnerships” that integrate the different elements of preparedness between local government and industry at the provincial level. Oil Spill Response and East Asia Response Ltd (OSRL/EARL) is a ‘not for profit’ Tier 3 response organisation with a regional base in Singapore for the Asia Pacific Region. Recognising the importance and issues surrounding oil spill preparedness and response we had been proactively involved in the region for the past six years through our advocacy activities that seek to address these challenges with the support of the oil industry. OSRL/EARL on 16 December 2006 joined the East Asian Seas (EAS) Partnership Council as a member to provide the technical support and operational expertise to enhance oil spill preparedness in high risk areas in the region.