Preparing for the unthinkable

Norwegian ports or refuge.

Norway finds itself slightly out on a limb in its efforts to deal with the continuous increase in oil shipments from the Russian Murmansk area. Admittedly Norway is going through the motions and has appointed “places of refuge”, in adherence to IMO regulations, and has also researched safety at sea and its own oil spill contingency under the title “On the safe side”.

The “places of refuge” are often small and unsuited for the purpose. Very few can accommodate VLCCs or even ULCCs and some are even located in environmentally protected areas. But at least Norway has at last recognised the problem and want to do something constructive.

But with an extensive coastline, exposed to severe weather conditions, no amount of oil spill contingencies can protect the marine environment around the coast.

Realistic approach
However, although the authorities know full well that Norway runs the risk of having a major oil spill disaster, nobody is prepared to say so.

Nevertheless, there is a growing realism emerging in the operative agencies under the Norwegian Coastal Administration, that there is a limit to the resources available for coastline protection.

The potential risk is formidable and it is no good denying that it exists. In a White Paper the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Administration has had consultants employed – Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and Norconsult – to look at the risks involved in crude oil and product transportation along the Norwegian coast.

The results are measured in number of years between each accident along ever 100 nautical miles of coastline. Although the risk analysis covered both small and big spills, it is the major accidents, which cause a great deal of concern.

The analysis covers the period from 2003 to 2015 and the most exposed areas are in Northern Norway and Western Norway, which is not surprising, bearing in mind the oil shipments from Murmansk and Norways own oil shipments from Mongstad, Sture and Kaarsto, all located in Western Norway.

Oil shipments in the north
Crude and product shipments from North West Russia present Norway with a set of problems. There is traffic control as well as environmental protection, both of which entail big resources. It is not that Norway is not prepared, only that it is admittedly impossible to prepare for a VLCC/ULCC foundering on the coast of Finnmark. No contingency in the world could cope with such a disaster.

Research and projections conducted by the Norwegian Coastal Administration (NCA) shows that while 160 crude tankers were registered in Norwegian waters in 2002 m the number was up to 250 in 2003. The number of tankers will increase in line with with development in the Murmansk area and on the Russian coastline further east.

Much depends on whether or not a new pipeline from Siberia to the Murmansk area is built. Without this pipeline the NCA assumes that by 2015 a minimum of two 300,000 DWT, tankers will leave every week for the United States and one 100,000 DWT vessel for Europe. With the pipeline to supply the terminal the number of 300,000 DWT vessels will increase to six per week to the United States and eleven 100,000 DWT vessels to Europe.

Presumably, this number can be doubled, as the number of vessels leaving the Murmansk terminal will have to arrive at some stage to pick up their cargo. Even an empty tanker is a risk in the northern waters.

The political repercussions of the “Prestige” accident led to the concept of ports of refuge or even places of refuge to allow vessels in distress to enter ports of to be beached to limit the environmental impact of oil spills. The notion is that if “Prestige” had been allowing on port to repair the extensive damage to plating due to severe weather, the oil spill damage would be limited to the port. In the event 77,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil leaked out and caused severe damage to Spain’s Atlantic coastline.

The location of the designated places of refuge has cause a political stir as the coastal communities have had no say in the matter. Admittedly the list is preliminary, but it has to be submitted to the IMO this year. The NCA tells the local communities, that there is little chance the places of refuge will ever be used. Having a tanker beached near you is not an appetizing prospect.

Seaborne traffic
Around 66 per cent of all traffic in Norwegian waters in tonnes is crude oil and petroleum products. Up until now the traffic has been greatest in the southern half of the country. Transportation of wet bulk like gas, crude oil and petroleum products comes from several major processing and refining units along the coast. Norway has two refineries at Mongstad near Bergen and at Slagetangen near Tønsberg in the outer reaches of the Oslo Fjord.

To be able to manage the system the NCA has divided the coast into seven separate zones; South East Norway (255 nautical miles (nm)), Skagerak (80 nm), Western Norway (290 nm), Mid Norway (275 nm) County of Nordland (250 nm), Troms and Finnmark (275 nm) and Spitzbergen (275 nm). The inclusion of Skagerak will cover crude and product traffic from the Baltics to European ports.
We touched on the subject of oil spill risk along the Norwegian coast in October last year and quoted Tor Christian Sletner, Director, and head of the Department for Emergency Response at the NCA. He honestly admitted that:
“No level of preparedness can prevent oil spilling onto the beaches or the occurrence of environmental damage under difficult weather conditions. If oil spills into the sea, it is to be expected that large areas may be affected by oil pollution”.

//Petter Arentz