HANDBOOK2011/12

1

ITOPF Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3In the Event of a Spill of Oil or Hazardous and Noxious Substance (chemical) . . . .4Technical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Information Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Oil Spill Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Fate of Marine Oil Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Oil Classification Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Oil Spill Clean-up Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Organisation of Spill Response and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Effects of Marine Oil Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Spill Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Civil Liability and Fund Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30STOPIA & TOPIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Bunker Spills Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35HNS Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Wreck Removal Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36National Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Oil Pollution Act of 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

OPRC Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Status of International Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Useful Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48Terms and Conditions of Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50Terms and Conditions of Associate Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Contents

2

Mr B Moller Teekay Corporation (Chairman)Dr K J Purnell ITOPF Ltd (Managing Director)Mr M Al-Gusaier Vela International Marine LtdMr E N Araujo Neto TranspetroMr C G Bastis Seagroup IncMr N J P Carden Thomas Miller P&I LtdMr B Chiu BW Maritime Pte LtdMr S O Frank SovcomflotMr P J Goulandris Triandros CorporationMr D Jacobsohn Assuranceforeningen Skuld (Gjensidig)Mr W E Jenkins ExxonMobil Global Marine TransportationMr T Kanai Japan Shipowners’ Mutual P&I AssociationMr D C C Koo Valles Steamship Company LimitedMr J M Kopernicki Shell International Trading & Shipping Co LtdMr D R Kurz Keystone Shipping CoMr M Martecchini Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group BVMr H Nagasawa NYK LineMr D J Ridgway BP Shipping LtdMr M H Ross Chevron Shipping Company LLCMr N H Schües Reederei F Laeisz GmbHMr B Sheth Great Eastern Shipping Company LtdMr S Skou A P Møller - Maersk A/SMr H Takahashi Nippon Oil Tanker CorporationMr J Ullman Stena Bulk AB

ITOPF Directors

3

Over the past 40 years ITOPF’stechnical staff have responded to

over 650 ship-source spills in 99 countriesin order to give objective advice on clean-up measures, environmental andeconomic effects, and compensation.Whilst many of these spills involved crudeoil spilled from tankers, ITOPF staff areregularly called upon to respond to spillsof bunker fuel, chemicals and bulkcargoes from all types of ship. Advice isalso occasionally given in relation to oilspills from pipelines and offshoreinstallations, and physical damage to coralreefs resulting from ship groundings.

The first-hand experience gained by ourstaff through direct involvement inpollution incidents is put to good useduring damage assessment, contingencyplanning and training assignments, aswell as in the production of technicalpublications.

ITOPF is a not-for-profit organisation.Over 90 percent of our income comesfrom subscriptions paid by P&I insurerson behalf of their shipowner members,who they enrol in ITOPF as eitherMembers or Associates. This gives themaccess to the Federation’s full range oftechnical and information services,usually at no cost.

ITOPF’s Membership comprises almost6,200 tanker owners and bareboatcharterers, who between them own or

Introduction

operate about 10,800 tankers, bargesand combination carriers with a totalgross tonnage of about 326 million GT.This represents virtually all the world’sbulk oil, chemical and gas carrier tonnageand so it is extremely rare for the ownerof any such ship engaged in internationaltrade not to be a Member of ITOPF.

Associates comprise the owners andbareboat charterers of all other typesof ship, currently totalling some536 million GT. This reflects ITOPF’sincreasingly important role in recentyears in responding to bunker spillsfrom non-tankers.

ITOPF’s activities are overseenby an international Board of Directorsrepresenting the Federation’s inde-pendent and oil company tankerowner Members, its Associates andP&I insurers. The names of the currentDirectors appear opposite.

Since its establishment in 1968, ITOPFhas evolved into the maritime industry’sprimary source of objective technicaladvice, expertise and information oneffective response to ship-sourcepollution. ITOPF has observer statusat both the International MaritimeOrganization (IMO) and the InternationalOil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPCFunds) and we regularly contribute todiscussions on matters relating to ship-source pollution.

4

In the Event of a Spill of Oilor

Hazardous and Noxious Substance (chemical)

Emergency Contact – Business HoursPlease use ITOPF’s office telephone number:

+44 (0)20 7566 6999

Emergency Contact – Outside Normal Office Hours+44 (0)7623 984 606

We are aware that there have been difficulties using our 24hr emergency pager number fromsome countries. An alternative number to try if this should occur is: +44 (0)20 7566 6998. Thesenumbers are linked to a message paging system. Callers should therefore be ready to leave theirname, contact number and a brief message. The member of the ITOPF technical staff who is onduty will return the call and will require as much of the following information as possible:

Essential Information • Contact details of the person reporting the incident• Name of vessel and owner • Date and time of the incident (specifying local time or GMT/UTC)• Position (eg latitude and longitude or distance and direction from the nearest port orlandmark)

• Cause of the incident (eg collision, grounding, explosion, fire, etc) and nature of damage• Description and quantity of cargo and bunker fuel on board • Estimate of the quantity spilled or likelihood of spillage• Name of the cargo owner• Action, both taken and intended (and by whom), to combat pollution• Status of the vessel and any planned salvage activities

Additional Useful Information• Weather and sea conditions, wind speed and direction • Length, breadth and appearance of any slicks or plumes, including direction of movement • Type of resources that may be at risk (eg fisheries or residential areas)• Distribution of cargo and bunkers and location relative to damage

Oil• Density, viscosity, pour point, distillationcharacteristics, wax & asphaltene content

HNS Chemicals• State – solid, liquid, gas, bulk, packaged • UN or CAS number, MSDS, cargo manifest

5

Technical Services

Response to Marine Spills

Responding to ship-source spills of oil orchemicals is ITOPF’s priority service andis normally performed, without charge,at the request of one of its Members orAssociates and their P&I insurers. TheIOPC Funds also usually call on ITOPF’stechnical services for oil spills withwhich they are involved.

ITOPF’s first task on being advised of anew spill is to evaluate the probablebehaviour, fate and impact of the oil orchemical, and the local capability toorganise an effective clean-up response.

At the same time as the details listed onpage 4 are being sought from outsidesources, our staff will be referring tointernal information on environmentaland economic resources likely to be at

risk in the affected country, as well as onthe national arrangements for spillresponse. This and other relevantinformation is summarised in theappropriate Country Profile, thecomplete series of which can be foundon our website. This is also the source ofother relevant information, for example,on the applicable liability andcompensation regime.

Internal databases on the availability ofclean-up equipment and materials, localsurveyors and other experts will also beconsulted and guidance sought fromour experience of previous spills in thesame region. If the evaluation of the spillindicates that it is likely to pose a seriousthreat to coastal resources, a member ofthe ITOPF technical staff will probablybe asked to attend on-site immediately.The role of the ITOPF technical adviser

Spills attended by ITOPF staff, 1970-2010

6

at the site of a spill varies according tothe circumstances but is alwaysadvisory. It normally includes one ormore of the following activities:

• advising and assisting all parties onthe most appropriate clean-upresponse, with the aim of mitigatingany damage;

• helping secure equipment andorganise the clean-up when there is aneed to supplement the localresponse capability;

• monitoring the clean-up, in order toprovide subsequent reports ofevents and of the technical merit ofactions in relation to claims forcompensation;

• investigating any damage to theenvironment and to coastal resourcessuch as fisheries and mariculture.

In all cases the aim is to co-operate andwork closely with all parties involved in aspill, and to reach agreement onmeasures that are technically justified inthe particular circumstances. This notonly helps ensure that the clean-up is aseffective as possible and that the

minimum of damage is caused, butalso that subsequent claims forcompensation can be dealt withpromptly and amicably.

Damage Assessment andClaims Analysis

Assessment of the technical merits ofclaims for compensation is a naturalextension of our on-site attendance atthe time of a spill. It usually involvesassessing the reasonableness of clean-up costs and the merits of claims fordamage to economic resources. Theassessment of damage to fisheries –especially mariculture facilities – is aparticular area of specialisation whichoften requires the detailed analysis ofcomplex claims, frequently inconjunction with other specialists whohave in-depth knowledge of theaffected area and the economics of itsparticular fisheries.

7

Our advice is also regularly sought onenvironmental damage caused by spills,and on the feasibility and technicaljustification of proposed restorationmeasures designed to enhance naturalrecovery.

ITOPF’s role in damage assessment andclaims analysis is limited to providingadvice on the technical merit of claims.The final decision on settling any claimrests with those who will pay the actualcompensation, usually a P&I insurerand/or the IOPC Funds.

Contingency Planningand Advisory Work

A major spill of oil or chemicals presentsthose in charge with a range of complexproblems and prompt decisions areneeded if an effective response is to bemounted. There is a greater likelihoodthat this will happen if effort has been

devoted beforehand to the preparationof a contingency plan that is bothcomprehensive and realistic.

Using their extensive practicalexperience of spill response around theworld, ITOPF staff often advisegovernments, industry, internationalagencies and other organisations on thepreparation of contingency plans andrelated matters.

Training and Education

Regular training is vital if personnel areto implement a contingency planeffectively and mount an efficientresponse to an incident. We organiseand participate in numerous trainingcourses and seminars for governmentand industry personnel around theworld, and frequently assist with spilldrills and exercises conducted byshipowners and other groups.

8

Library

To support its technical services,ITOPF maintains an extensive library

of publications and information onclean-up techniques, effects and otherrelated issues. Visitors are welcome byappointment.

Publications

We produce a wide range of technicalpublications and papers. These aredesigned to keep Members, Associatesand others around the world in touch withdevelopments in spill preparedness,response and compensation. A list ofITOPF publications can be found onpages 42 and 43.

Databases

Since 1974, ITOPF has maintained aworldwide database of accidental oilspills from tankers, combined carriersand barges. This is probably the mostcomprehensive of its kind and allowslong term trends to be analysed (seeopposite for details).

Country Profiles

Our series of Country Profiles,summarising the spill responsearrangements and clean-up resources in

Information Services

some 160 maritime states are freelyavailable on the ITOPF website. EachCountry Profile is two to four pages longand contains information on the spillnotification point, command structuresfor at-sea and on-shore response,the availability of government- andprivately-owned equipment, past spills,HNS response and preparedness(where available) and the status ofrelevant international conventions.

GIS

The Oil Spills Database and CountryProfiles can be displayed on ourGeographic Information System (GIS)accessed via our website. This alsodisplays tanker traffic and cargo volumerouting data, as well as the status ofrelevant conventions.

www.itopf.com

Our website contains backgroundinformation on ITOPF and news ofcurrent activities; technical advice onresponding to spills of oil and HNS andtheir likely fate and effects in the marineenvironment; statistics on numbers,sizes and causes of tanker spills; we alsodisplay a GIS, and have information oncontingency planning, liability andcompensation and links to other usefulwebsites.

9

The ITOPF database containsinformation on approximately

10,000 oil spills from tankers, combinedcarriers and barges, some 81% of whichwere less than seven tonnes. Moredetailed information is available on theITOPF website.

Oil Spill Statistics

Number and AmountsThe average number of large oil spills(>700 tonnes) during the 2000s was justan eighth of that during the 1970s. Thisdramatic reduction has been due to thecombined efforts of the oil/shippingindustry and governments (largely

Numbers of large spills (over 700 tonnes), 1970-2010

Quantities of oil spilled, 1970-2010

10

through the IMO) to improve safety andpollution prevention. The total amountof oil spilled each year variesconsiderably, with a few very large spillsbeing responsible for a high percentageof the total annual quantity.

Causes of SpillsWe have explored the incidence ofspills of different sizes in terms of theprimary event or operation in progress

at the time of the spill. In the category7-700 tonnes some 36% of spillsoccurred during routine operations,most especially loading or discharging(29%). Accidents were the main causeof large spills (>700 tonnes), withgroundings and collisions accountingfor 64% of the total during theperiod 1970–2010. Other significantcauses included hull failures andfire/explosion.

Causes of large spills (>700 tonnes), 1970–2010

Causes of intermediate spills (7–700 tonnes), 1970–2010

11

When oil is spilled at sea it spreadsand moves on the surface while

undergoing a number of chemical andphysical changes, collectively termedweathering. The diagram belowschematically represents the differentprocesses involved.

Weathering Processes

Most of the processes, such asevaporation, dispersion, dissolution andsedimentation, lead to the dis-appearance of oil from the surface of thesea, whereas others, particularly theformation of water-in-oil emulsions(“mousse”) and the accompanyingincrease in viscosity, promote itspersistence. The speed and relativeimportance of the processes depend onfactors such as the quantity and type ofoil, the prevailing weather and seaconditions, and whether the oil remains

Fate of Marine Oil Spills

at sea or is washed ashore. Ultimately,the marine environment assimilatesspilled oil through the long-termprocess of biodegradation.

Persistence of Oil

In considering the fate of spilled oil atsea, a distinction is frequently madebetween non-persistent oils, which tendto disappear rapidly from the seasurface, and persistent oils, which incontrast dissipate more slowly andusually require a clean-up response.The definition of a non-persistent oildeveloped in relation to compensationis given on page 30. However, thisdefinition is based on distillationcharacteristics of oils under standardlaboratory conditions. It may not,therefore, fully reflect the behaviour ofan oil in the environment, where factorssuch as burial in sediments can lead to

12

the long-term persistence of oils thatwould normally be defined as non-persistent.

Models

The main properties that affect thebehaviour of spilled oil at sea are specificgravity (its density relative to pure water -often expressed as ˚API); distillationcharacteristics (its volatility); viscosity (itsresistance to flow); and pour point (thetemperature below which it will not flow).

Since the interactions between thevarious weathering processes are not wellunderstood, reliance is often placed onempirical models based upon theproperties of different oil types. For thispurpose, it is convenient to classify themost commonly transported oils into fourmain groups, roughly according to theirspecific gravity (see table opposite).Having classified the oils, the expectedrates of dissipation can be predicted.These are shown in the above graph,where account is also taken of thecompeting process of emulsification

which, for most oils, leads to an increasein volume.

Group I oils (non-persistent) tendto dissipate completely throughevaporation within a few hours and donot normally form emulsions. Group IIand III oils can lose up to 40% by volumethrough evaporation but, because oftheir tendency to form viscousemulsions, there is an initial volumeincrease as well as a curtailment ofnatural dispersion, particularly in thecase of Group III oils. Group IV oils arevery persistent due to their lack ofvolatile material and high viscosity,which precludes both evaporation anddispersion.

It is important to appreciate theassumptions upon which such modelsare based and not to place too muchreliance on the results. However, theycan serve as a useful guide tounderstanding how a particular oil islikely to behave and help in assessingthe scale of the problem which a spillmight generate.

Volume of oil and water-in-oil emulsion remaining on thesea surface, as a percentage of the original volume spilled

CLASSIFICATION OF OILSACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC GRAVITY

A B C D E Aasgard 49 -28 2 @ 10oC 58 14Arabian Super Light 51 -39 2 @ 20oCCossack 48 -18 2 @ 20oC 51 18Curlew 47 -13 2 @ 20oC 57 17F3 Condensate 54 <-63 1 @ 10oC 81 0Gippsland 52 -13 1.5 @ 20oC 63 8Hidra 52 -62 2.5 @ 10oC 60 11Terengganu condensate 73 -36 0.5 @ 20oC >95 0Wollybutt 49 -53 2@ 20oC 55 4Gasoline 58 0.5 @ 15oC 100 0Kerosene 45 -55 2 @ 15oC 50 0Naptha 55 0.5 @ 15oC 100 0

Group 1 oils

A: ˚API > 45 (Specific gravity < 0.8)B: Pour point ˚C C: Viscosity @ 10–20˚C: less than 3 CSt D: % boiling below 200˚C: greater than 50%E: % boiling above 370˚C: between 20 and 0%

Example oils classified according to their ˚API (American Petroleum Institute gravity). Indicative ranges of expectedviscosities and distillation characteristics are provided for each group. Generally, persistence when spilled increases withgroup number. However, if an oil, once spilled, cools to below its pour point temperature, it will change from a liquid to asemi-solid. This can occur for certain oils irrespective of whether they are classed as Group 2, 3 or 4. The pour points ofoils classed as Group 1 are sufficiently low so as not to be a concern in the marine environment.

Low pour point <6oCA B C D E

Arabian Extra Light 38 -30 3 @ 15oC 26 39Azeri 37 -3 8 @ 20oC 29 46Brent 38 -3 7 @ 10oC 37 33Draugen 40 -15 4 @ 20oC 37 32Dukhan 41 -49 9 @ 15oC 36 33Liverpool Bay 45 -21 4 @ 20oC 42 28Sokol (Sakhalin) 37 -27 4 @ 20oC 45 21Rio Negro 35 -5 23 @ 10oC 29 41Umm Shaif 37 -24 10 @ 10oC 34 31Zakum 40 -24 6@ 10oC 36 33Marine Gas oil (MGO) 37 -3 5 @ 15oC

High pour point >5oCAmna 36 19 Semi–solid 25 30Beatrice 38 18 32 @ 15oC 25 35Bintulu 37 19 Semi–solid 24 34Escravos 34 10 9 @ 15oC 35 15Sarir 38 24 Semi–solid 24 39Statfjord 40 6 7 @ 10oC 38 32

Group 2 oils

A: ˚API 35–45 (Specific gravity 0.8–0.85)B: Pour point ˚C C: Viscosity @ 10–20˚C: between 4 Cst and semi-solid D: % boiling below 200˚C: between 20 and 50% E: % boiling above 370˚C: between 15 and 50%

Low pour point <6oCA B C D E

Alaska North Slope 28 -18 32 @ 15oC 32 41Arabian Heavy 28 -40 55 @ 15oC 21 56Arabian Medium 30 -21 25 @ 15oC 22 51Arabian Light 33 -40 14 @ 15oC 25 45Bonny Light 35 -11 25 @ 15oC 26 30Iranian Heavy 31 -36 25 @ 15oC 24 48Iranian Light 34 -32 15 @ 15oC 26 43Khafji 28 -57 80 @ 15oC 21 55Sirri 33 -12 18 @ 10oC 32 38Thunder Horse 35 -27 10 @ 10oC 32 39Tia Juana Light 32 -42 500 @ 15oC 24 45Troll 33 -9 14 @ 10oC 24 35IFO 180 18–20 10–30 1,500–3,000 @ 15oC –

High pour point >5oCCabinda 33 12 Semi–solid 18 56Coco 32 21 Semi–solid 21 46Gamba 31 23 Semi–solid 11 54Mandji 30 9 70 @ 15oC 21 53Minas 35 18 Semi–solid 15 58

Group 3 oils

A: ˚API 17.5–35 (Specific gravity 0.85–0.95)B: Pour point ˚C C: Viscosity @ 10–20˚C: between 8 CSt and semi solidD: % boiling below 200˚C: between 10 and 35% E: % boiling above 370˚C: between 30 and 65%

A B C D E Bachaquero 17 16 -29 5,000 @ 15oC 10 60Boscan 10 15 Semi –solid 4 80Cinta 33 43 Semi –solid 10 54Handil 33 35 Semi –solid 23 33Merey 17 -21 7,000 @ 15oC 7 70Nile Blend 34 33 Semi–solid 13 59Pilon 14 -3 Semi–solid 2 92Shengli 24 21 Semi–solid 9 70Taching 31 35 Semi–solid 12 49Tia Juana Pesado 12 -1 Semi–solid 3 78Widuri 33 46 Semi–solid 7 70IFO 380 11–15 10–30 5,000–30,000 @ 15oC  

Group 4 oils

A: ˚API <17.5 (Specific gravity >0.95) orB: Pour point >30˚CC: Viscosity @ 10–20˚C: between 1500 CSt and semi-solidD: % boiling below 200˚C: less than 25% E: % boiling above 370˚C: greater than 30%

Note: High pour point oils only behave as Group 2 atambient temperatures above their pour point. Below thistreat as Group 4 oils.

Note: High pour point oils only behave as Group 3 atambient temperatures above their pour point. Below thistreat as Group 4 oils.

14

Choosing the most appropriatetechniques for cleaning up an oil

spill is crucial and will depend upon theexact circumstances of an incident. Themain techniques are described brieflybelow. More detailed information canbe found in other ITOPF publications(see pages 42 and 43).

A clean-up response is not alwaysnecessary. Sometimes the oil will remainoffshore, where it will dissipate andeventually degrade naturally withoutaffecting coastal resources or wildlife. Insuch cases, monitoring the movementand fate of the floating slicks to confirmthe predictions may be sufficient. Onthis basis, some of the largest spills overthe last 40 years have not required aclean-up response. In contrast, even asmall spill, especially of a very persistentcrude or heavy fuel oil, may call for a

Oil Spill Clean-up Techniques

major response effort, especially ifsensitive resources are threatened.

Response at Sea

Booms and SkimmersThe use of booms to contain andconcentrate floating oil prior to itsrecovery by specialised skimmers isoften seen as the ideal solution since, ifeffective, it would remove the oil fromthe marine environment.

Unfortunately, this approach suffersfrom a number of fundamentalproblems, not least of which is the factthat it is in direct opposition to thenatural tendency of the oil to spread,fragment and disperse under theinfluence of wind, waves and currents.Thus, even if containment andcollection systems are operating withina few hours of an initial release they willtend to encounter floating oil at anextremely low rate. Because of this it israre, even in ideal conditions, for morethan a relatively small proportion (10-15%) of the spilled oil to be recovered.

When containment and recovery isattempted it is important to selectequipment that is suitable for the type ofoil and the weather/sea conditions.Efforts should target the heaviest oilconcentrations and areas wherecollection will reduce the likelihood ofoil impacting sensitive resources andshorelines.

15

In-situ BurningBecause of the logistical difficulties ofpicking up oil from the sea surface andstoring it prior to final disposal on land,an alternative approach involvesconcentrating the oil in special fireproofbooms and setting it alight. In practice,this technique is unlikely to be viable inmost ship-source spills, due to thedifficulty of collecting and maintainingsufficient thickness of oil to burn. As themost flammable components of thespilled oil evaporate quickly, ignition canalso be difficult. Residues from burningmay sink, with potential long-term effectson sea bed ecology and fisheries. Closeto the shore or the source of the spill,there may be health and safety concernsas a result of the risk of the fire spreadingout of control or atmospheric fall-outfrom the smoke plume.

DispersantsDispersant chemicals work byenhancing the natural dispersion of the

oil into the sea. The oil is broken downinto tiny droplets which are dispersedinto the water column, where they arediluted by currents and eventually breakdown naturally.

Dispersants can be sprayed from boats,planes and helicopters. With goodoperational support, large quantities ofoil spread over a wide area can betreated quickly and effectively. Formaximum effectiveness, dispersantsneed to be applied to oil before it hasbecome viscous through evaporation orformed an emulsion. Some types of oilsuch as heavy fuel oil and viscous crudeare less amenable to dispersion from theoutset.

The controlled use of dispersants canreduce the overall impact of an oil spillon environmental and economicresources. However, since their useresults in the oil being transferred from

16

the sea surface into the water column,there needs to be a careful evaluation ofthe relative risk to potentially sensitiveresources in different parts of themarine environment. If there areconflicting priorities (eg betweenseabirds at risk from floating oil andcommercial fish and shellfish at risk fromdispersed oil) these need to be resolvedat the contingency planning stage.Because of their potential to do harm ifused incorrectly, the approval ofdispersant products and their use isgenerally strictly controlled by therelevant government authorities.

Protecting Sensitive Resources

Given the difficulties of cleaning up oil atsea, spilled oil will often threaten coastalresources. It may be possible to protectsome of these resources by the strategicdeployment of booms. Other measuresmay also be appropriate, such as closingwater intakes to industrial plants orcoastal lagoons.

Highest priority should be given toprotecting coastal resources which areparticularly sensitive to oil pollution andwhich can be boomed effectively. Thesecan include fish and shellfish farms,industrial water intakes, leisure facilitiessuch as marinas, and environmentally-sensitive areas, such as bird colonies.

Whilst some sites will be relatively easyto protect, others such as marshes,mangroves and amenity beaches, areoften too extensive for booming to bepractical. It is important to act quicklyand, with limited resources available,decisions must be taken as to whichsites should be given priority. Thisshould be pre-determined, in contin-gency plans.

Shoreline Clean-up

Once oil has reached coastlines,response efforts should first focus onareas which have the heaviestconcentrations of mobile oil, which

17

could otherwise lead to further pollutionof surrounding areas. A combination ofclean-up techniques is normally usedwhen cleaning contaminated shorelines,including manual and mechanicalremoval, flushing or washing with waterat high or low temperatures andpressures, and even wiping with ragsand sorbent materials.

It is important to choose techniqueswhich are appropriate for the level ofcontamination and shoreline type,which may range from mud flats,through sandy and cobble beaches, torocky shores and high cliffs, as well as toman-made structures such asbreakwaters and protective walls.

It is important to ensure that thetechniques selected do not do moreharm than good. This requires a site-specific assessment of the environ-mental and economic benefits of theproposed actions. In some cases themost appropriate strategy will be toallow natural clean-up and recovery to

take its course. Experience around theworld has shown, for example, thatsensitive areas such as marshes andmangroves often recover more quicklyand completely if invasive clean-uptechniques and physical disturbance areavoided. Natural cleaning can also bevery effective on rocky shores that areexposed to strong wave action.

BioremediationThe application of oil-degradingbacteria and nutrients to contaminatedshorelines to enhance the process ofnatural degradation has generatedconsiderable interest for more than twodecades. However, it has so far not beendemonstrated to be technologicallyfeasible or beneficial for large-scalerestoration projects.

Disposal

At-sea recovery and shoreline clean-upgenerate substantial amounts of oil andoily waste which need to betransported, temporarily stored andultimately disposed of in anenvironmentally acceptable manner.Such operations often continue longafter the clean-up phase is over.

Liquid oil and oily water may bereprocessed at a refinery. Oily materialcan be used as a low-grade feedstock insome industrial processes and it mayalso be stabilised for use in constructionprojects, as a low-cost secondary rawmaterial. More traditional disposalroutes include incineration and landfill.

18

Whilst the technical aspects ofdealing with a spill are clearly

important, the effectiveness of theresponse to a major pollution event willultimately depend upon the quality ofthe contingency plan, and of theorganisation and control of the variousaspects of the clean-up operation.

Organisation of Spill Response

Apart from the major oil importingnations of the USA, Japan and Korea,which have little passing tanker traffic,government authorities in mostcountries have traditionally assumedresponsibility for organising andcontrolling the clean-up of a major ship-source oil spill. The resources called onby such government authorities may bepublicly owned or provided by privateorganisations under some form ofcontract. In anticipation of a majorincident that exceeds the nationalcapability, many governments haveratified the 1990 OPRC Convention (seepage 40) and also entered into bilateralor regional inter-governmental agree-ments that facilitate the provision ofadditional clean-up resources fromneighbouring countries. Assistance mayalso be sought from the oil industry’sTier 3 Centres or from commercialclean-up contractors.

There are good reasons whygovernments have traditionally assumedresponsibility for responding to shipping

Organisation of Spill Response and Planning

casualties. Firstly, such incidents ofteninvolve vessels in innocent passagewhose owners do not have anoperational capability in the affectedcountry and who would therefore find itdifficult to respond promptly when theneed arises. The responsibility forprotecting a country’s interests alsoultimately rests with governmentauthorities and they alone are in aposition to determine priorities forprotection and clean-up in the particularcircumstances. The internationalcompensation Conventions were largelycreated to encourage such authorities toassume the responsibility for respondingto spills of persistent oil from tankers byproviding a straightforward systemwhereby the costs of “reasonable”measures are promptly reimbursed (seepages 30 - 36).

Spill response is not a core activity formost government authorities due to thefact that serious events are aninfrequent occurrence. The organ-isational structure for responding toship-source spills therefore tends tofollow administrative structures createdfor other purposes. This is particularlyevident when it comes to shorelineclean-up, where the responsibility oftenlies with a multitude of local andregional government authorities. Inharbour areas some responsibility mayalso fall on the port authority and on theoperators of terminals and otherfacilities. In a major spill, this can lead to

19

unclear command and control and a lackof co-ordination.

Such spill management problems are notovercome by inviting all interestedparties to serve on one or morecommittees during an incident so thatthey can participate in the decision-making process. This can lead to large,unwieldy spill management teams,delayed decision making and, frequently,the adoption of inappropriate orconflicting response strategies.

When the oil is on the water or on theshore, informed and decisive leadershipis required, with authority vested in anappropriate individual or in a smallcommand team. This should ensure thatan effective response consistent withthe contingency plan is initiatedpromptly. However, one individual oreven a small command team cannotmanage the response to a significantspill alone. It will be necessary for them

to be supported by experiencedtechnical and scientific advisers(including ITOPF). Other members ofthe management team will need to lookafter the various components of theoverall operation, as well as logisticsupport, record keeping and financialcontrol.

Government organised response, withadditional support provided byshipowners and other private entities,has proved to be a successful formula innumerous past spills. However, there isan increasing tendency by governmentauthorities in some parts of the world torequire shipowners (and even, onoccasion, cargo owners) to go furtherand to organise and manage the clean-up of their own spills, with theauthorities merely issuing directions andmonitoring the results. This is despitethe fact that such an obligation is oftennot stated in national contingency plans.This can mean that a shipowner whoattempts to mount a spill responseoperation will be confronted bynumerous practical difficulties, leadingto ad hoc arrangements. To avoid this,the responsible government authorityshould define, prior to any spilloccurring, how the shipowner’sresponse operation will be integratedinto its own organisational structures. Italso needs to guarantee that thenecessary logistic support will beavailable in the event of a spill (egsuitable boats, oil storage facilities,trained operators). All of this needs tobe tested through realistic exercises,based on actual spill experiences.

20

Contingency Planning

A major spill will inevitably presentthose in charge with numerous,complex problems, some of which willbe non-technical in nature. There is agreater likelihood that prompt andeffective response decisions will bemade if considerable effort has beendevoted in advance of any spill tothe preparation of comprehensive,realistic and integrated contingencyplans for different levels of risk. Issuesthat are difficult to resolve prior to anincident are likely to become seriousconflicts in the highly chargedatmosphere following a major spillwhen everyone should be workingtogether, with the common purpose ofcleaning up the pollution as effectivelyas possible with the minimum ofdamage to the environment andeconomic resources.

As well as assessing the particular risksfaced by a facility, region or country,contingency plans should clearly definethe responsibilities of all the differentparties likely to be involved in a spill andthe organisational structure for effectivecommand and control. There should bean up-to-date list of key contact points.On the technical side, plans shouldidentify sensitive environmental andeconomic resources, priorities forprotection and clean-up, agreedresponse strategies for different sea andshoreline areas at different times of theyear, stocks of clean-up equipment andmaterials, temporary storage sites andfinal disposal options. Increasingly there

is also a need to plan for managing thelegitimate interests of the media in a waythat ensures that they receive regularfactual updates, without interfering withthe control and conduct of the actualresponse operation.

Completed contingency plans may lookimpressive but, in reality, the finalproduct is less important than the actualprocess of planning. Thus, the mainbenefit of developing a plan comes fromgathering all the necessary data,consulting and getting to know allpotentially interested parties, andresolving potential disputes in a calmatmosphere. For this reason it isimportant that those who will berequired to implement the plan shouldalso be closely involved in itspreparation.

Contingency plans should be regularlytested and updated. The ultimate test isa major spill when organisational andtechnical problems will inevitably occur.These problems need to be identified inan objective manner before memoriesfade and interest wanes so thatthey can be addressed throughamendments to the plan.

Because actual spills are rare, regulartraining of personnel at all levels and thetesting of equipment is essential. Spilldrills and exercises can be valuable inthis regard, so long as they are not tooambitious and include a large element ofsurprise and realism, with all ‘players’being willing to recognise problems inthe final debrief.

21

Many spill impacts have beendocumented in the scientific andtechnical literature, and although notall the effects of oil pollution arecompletely understood, an indicationof the likely scale and duration ofdamage can usually be deduced fromthe information available. However, itcan be difficult to present a balancedview of the realities of spill effects,given the often highly charged andemotional nature of a spill and itsaftermath. The scientific communitycan become polarised into opposingcamps with one side intent onquantifying every aspect of damage,and the other emphasising the capacityof the environment to recovernaturally. The simple reality is thatsometimes significant damage occurs,sometimes not, and the aim of thisreview is to draw together whatgeneral information is known aboutspill effects and their longevity.

The marine ecosystem is highly complexand natural fluctuations in speciescomposition, abundance and distri-bution are a basic feature of its normalfunction. The extent of damage cantherefore be difficult to detect againstthis background variability. Never-theless, the key to understandingdamage and its importance is whetherspill effects result in a downturn inbreeding success, productivity, diversityand the overall functioning of thesystem.

Oil spills can have serious effects onmarine life, as highlighted by the

photos of dead birds which immediatelyappear in the news after any spill.Such images fuel the perceptionof widespread and permanentenvironmental damage after every spill,and an inevitable loss of marineresources. A science-based appraisal ofthe effects reveals that whilst damageoccurs and may be profound at the levelof individual organisms, populations aremore resilient and natural recoveryprocesses are capable of repairing thedamage and returning the system tonormal functions. The first stage on theroad to recovery is usually a wellconducted clean-up operation but insome specific habitats aggressive clean-up methods can cause more harm thangood and then it is better to let naturalcleaning processes take their course.

Effects of Marine Oil Spills

Spills are not the only pressure onmarine habitats; chronic urban andindustrial contamination or theexploitation of the resources theyprovide are also serious threats. Thefollowing sections consider some of thetypes of damage caused by oil spills aswell as some of the benefits ofconducting post-spill studies.

RecoveryMarine animals and plants have varyingdegrees of natural resilience to changein their habitats. The natural adaptationsof organisms to cope with environ-mental stress, combined with theirbreeding capabilities, provide importantmechanisms for coping with the dailyand seasonal fluctuations in theirhabitats and for recovering frompredation and other natural disasters.Some natural phenomena can be highlydestructive – the power of hurricanesand tsunamis can easily be appreciated,as can the damage they cause. Thecyclical El Niño phenomenon has majorconsequences for marine organisms,seabirds and marine mammals

throughout the entire Pacific Ocean.Marine organisms suffer under suchonslaughts, but after what is oftensevere disruption and widespreadmortality, the system re-establishes overa period of time and this processconstitutes recovery.

An important and widespreadreproductive strategy for marineorganisms is the production of vastnumbers of eggs and larvae which arereleased into the plankton and arewidely distributed by currents. Thismechanism has evolved to deal with thepressures of predation and other causesof mortality, and to take maximumadvantage of available space andresources in the sea. In some cases, onlyone or two individuals in a millionactually survive through to adulthood.This over-production of young stagesensures that there is a considerablereservoir not only for the colonisation ofnew areas, but also for the replacementof any adults which have been killed as aresult of predation or some othercalamity. Long-lived species, that do notreach sexual maturity for many yearsand which produce few offspring, aretherefore likely to take longer to recoverfrom the effects of an oil spill.

Whilst there may be considerabledebate over what constitutes recovery,there is a widespread acceptance thatnatural variability in systems makesgetting back to the exact pre-spillcondition unlikely, and most currentdefinitions of recovery focus on the re-establishment of a community of plants

22

23

and animals which are characteristic ofthe habitat and are functioning normallyin terms of biodiversity and productivity.

Environmental Impacts

The exact nature and duration of anyimpacts from an oil spill depend on anumber of factors. These include thetype and amount of oil and its behaviouronce spilled; the physical characteristicsof the affected area; weather conditionsand season; the type and effectivenessof the clean-up response; the biologicaland economic characteristics of the areaand their sensitivity to oil pollution.Typical effects on marine organismsrange across a spectrum from toxicity(especially for light oils and products) tosmothering (heavier oils and weatheredresidues). The presence of toxiccomponents does not always causemortality, but may induce temporaryeffects like narcosis and tainting oftissues, which usually subside overtime. Some typical oil impacts aredescribed below.

PlanktonTheir importance in primaryproductivity of the oceans and as atemporary home for the eggs and larvaeof fish, shellfish, sea bed and shorelineorganisms is well known, but there islittle evidence of widespread harm tothese functions from spills whichsubsequently translates into long-termdamage. Plankton is extremely difficultto study reliably because they areamongst the most variable of marinecommunities in space and in time. The

presence of oil on open water is alsopatchy and transient, making it difficultto establish where and when theplankton might have been exposed tothe oil. Laboratory studies havedemonstrated toxic and sub-lethaleffects on the plankton caused by oil,and there is little doubt that there ispotential for widespread impact. Whilstthe possibility of long-term effects cannot be excluded, there is no indicationthat oil-induced losses of eggs and larvalstages cause a significant decline inadult populations.

SeabirdsSeabirds are amongst the mostvulnerable inhabitants of open waterssince they are easily harmed by floatingoil. Species that dive for their food orthat congregate on the sea surface areparticularly at risk. Although oil ingestedby birds during attempts to cleanthemselves by preening may be lethal,

the most common cause of death is fromdrowning, starvation and loss of bodyheat following fouling of plumage by oil.

Cleaning and rehabilitation of oiledbirds is often attempted, but for manyspecies it is rare for more than a fractionto survive cleaning and rarer still forthose that survive to breed successfullyafter release. Penguins are an exceptionand are much more resilient than otherbirds. When handled properly, themajority are likely to survive thecleaning process and rejoin breedingpopulations.

Bird mortality occurs during most spillsand in some major spills breedingcolonies have been seriously depleted.Some species react by laying more eggs,breeding more frequently or youngerbirds joining the breeding group. Theseprocesses can assist recovery, althoughrecovery may take several years and willalso depend on other factors like foodsupply. Whilst it is common for shortand medium term loss to occur in

populations, there is scant evidence ofspills causing long-term harm topopulations, or of a spill tipping amarginal colony into permanent decline.

Sea MammalsWhales, dolphins and seals in the opensea do not appear to be particularly atrisk from oil spills. Marine mammalssuch as seals and otters that breed onshorelines are, however, more likely toencounter oil. Species that rely on furto regulate their body temperature arethe most vulnerable since, if thefur becomes matted with oil, theanimals may die from hypothermia oroverheating, depending on theseason.

Shallow coastal watersSpill damage in shallow waters is mostoften caused by oil becoming mixedinto the sea by wave action or bydispersant chemicals used inapprop-riately. In many circumstances thedilution capacity is sufficient to keep oilconcentrations in the water belowharmful levels, but in cases where light,toxic products have become dispersed,or in major incidents where heavy waveaction has dispersed large volumes ofoil close inshore, large kills of marineorganisms such as shellfish haveoccurred. Post-spill studies reveal thatrecovery has taken place in a relativelyshort timescale through the processesnoted earlier, and impacts are rarelydetectable beyond a few years. In oneinstance, the BRAER spill in Shetland,UK, most of the spilt oil was dispersednaturally by heavy wave action, thus

24

25

avoiding much of the shorelinecontamination normally associated withlarge oil spills. However, some oilbecame incorporated into seabedsediments, causing long-term taintingof some commercial species.

ShorelinesShorelines, more than any other part ofthe marine environment, are exposed tothe effects of oil as this is where itnaturally tends to accumulate. However,many of the animals and plants on theshore are inherently tough since theymust be able to tolerate periodicexposure to pounding waves, dryingwinds, high temperatures, rainfall andother severe stresses. This tolerancealso gives many shoreline organisms theability to withstand and recover from oilspill effects.

Rocky and sandy shores exposed towave action and the scouring effects oftidal currents tend to be resilient to theeffects of a spill and they usually self-clean quite rapidly. Rocky shoresexposed to wave action are oftenquoted as those which recover mostrapidly, and there have been many casesin which this was true. A typical exampleof impact on this habitat is thetemporary loss of a keystone species,the limpet, which is a grazing snail,which leads to a ‘bloom’ of seaweeds intheir absence. Because of the increasedavailability of their food source, re-colonisation by limpets usually followsrapidly and the normal grazing pattern isre-established.

However, in some circumstances, subtlechanges to rocky shore communities

26

can be triggered by a spill, which cansubsequently be detected for ten ormore years. Although the functioning,diversity and productivity of theecosystem is restored, the detaileddistribution of particular species presentmay alter. The TORREY CANYON oilspill in 1967 is a case in point. Heavy andinappropriate use of toxic cleaningagents caused massive damage to someshores, and although re-colonisation bymost of the dominant organisms wasrapid, subtle differences in thedistribution of species could be tracedover more than twenty years whencompared with un-oiled sites. Theoverall functioning and productivity ofthese shores seems unimpaired, but it isdifficult to be absolutely certain of thisbecause of all the other stresses on thesystem, including those from tourismand fishing.

Soft sediment shores consisting of finesands and mud are found in areas thatare sheltered from wave action,including estuaries, and tend to behighly biologically productive. Theyoften support large populationsof migrating birds, indigenouspopulations of specialist sedimentdwellers and shellfisheries. They alsoact as nursery areas for some species.Oil can become incorporated in finesediments through a number ofmechanisms. Examples includeflocculation with sediment stirred upby storm activity and penetration downworm burrows and open plant stems. Ifoil does penetrate fine sediments it canpersist for many years, increasing thelikelihood of longer-term effects. Theupper fringe of ‘soft’ shores is oftendominated by saltmarsh which isgenerally only temporarily harmed by a

27

single oiling. However, damage lastingmany years can be inflicted byrepeated oil spills or by aggressiveclean-up activity, such as trampling orremoval of oiled substrate.

In tropical regions, mangrove swampsreplace saltmarshes and provide anextremely rich and diverse habitat aswell as coastal protection and importantnursery areas. The mangrove treeswhich provide the framework uponwhich this habitat depends cansometimes be killed depending on thetype of oil and the substrate in which thetrees are growing. Damage is more likelyif oil smothers their breathing roots or iftoxic oils penetrate the sediments.Where high mortality of trees occurs, insome cases including trees which are 50or more years old, natural recovery to adiverse and productive structure cantake decades. An important function ofboth saltmarsh and mangrove habitats isthat they provide organic inputs tocoastal waters which in turn enrich thecommunities living there. It is in thesemarsh and mangrove areas wheredamage has been recorded thatreinstatement measures have realpotential to speed up recovery.

RestorationRemoval of bulk oil contamination eitherthrough natural processes or a wellconducted clean-up operation is the firststage of the recovery of a damagedenvironment. Thereafter it may bejustified to take further active steps torestore lost resources and encouragenatural recovery, especially in circum-

stances where it would otherwise berelatively slow. An example of such anapproach following an oil spill would be toreplant a saltmarsh or mangrove after thebulk oil contamination has been removed.In this way erosion of the area would beminimised and other forms of life wouldbe encouraged to return.

While it may be possible to help restoredamaged vegetation and physicalstructures, designing meaningfulrestoration strategies for animals is amuch greater challenge. In some cases itmay be warranted to protect a naturalbreeding population at a nearby, un-oiled site, for example by predatorcontrol, to provide a reservoir fromwhich re-colonisation of the damagedareas can occur. In reality, thecomplexity of the marine environmentmeans that there are limits to whichecological damage can be repaired byartificial means. In most cases naturalrecovery is likely to be relatively rapidand will only rarely be outpaced byrestoration measures.

Economic Impacts

Contamination of coastal amenity areasis a common feature of many oil spills,leading to interference with recreationalactivities such as bathing, boating,angling and diving. Hotel and restaurantowners and others who gain theirlivelihood from the tourist trade can alsosuffer temporary losses. A return tonormal requires an effective clean-upprogramme and the restoration ofpublic confidence.

28

Industries that rely on seawater for theirnormal operation can also be adverselyaffected by oil spills. Power stations anddesalination plants which draw largequantities of seawater can beparticularly at risk, especially if theirwater intakes are located close to thesea surface, thereby increasing thepossibility of drawing in floating oil. Thenormal operations of other coastalindustries, such as shipyards, ports andharbours, can also be disrupted by oilspills and clean-up operations.

Fisheries and MaricultureAn oil spill can directly damage theboats and gear used for catching orcultivating marine species. Floatingequipment and fixed traps extendingabove the sea surface are more likely tobecome contaminated by floating oil,whereas submerged nets, pots, linesand bottom trawls are usually wellprotected provided they are not liftedthrough an oily sea surface. However,they may sometimes be affected bydispersed or sunken oil. Less common ismortality of stock, which can be causedby physical contamination or closecontact with freshly spilled oil in shallowwaters with poor water exchange.

A common cause of economic loss tofishermen is interruption to theiractivities by the presence of oil or theperformance of clean-up operations.Sometimes this results from aprecautionary ban on the catching andsale of fish and shellfish from the area,both to maintain market confidence andto protect fishing gear and catches from

contamination. Cultivated stocks aremore at risk from an oil spill: naturalavoidance mechanisms may beprevented in the case of captive species,and the oiling of cultivation equipmentmay provide a source for prolongedinput of oil components andcontamination of the organisms.Cultured seaweed and shellfish areparticularly vulnerable in tidal areaswhere they may become contaminatedwith oil as the tide drops.

It is almost always necessary to make athorough investigation of the status of afishery and alleged effects of a spill, inorder to determine the real impacts.This will often require scientificallyrigorous sampling and analyticaltechniques which are capable ofdocumenting the damage and providingproof that any damage observed hasbeen caused by the oil in question.Nevertheless, separating spill effectsfrom other factors which affect fisheriesis frequently problematic. Wild stocks ofcommercial species are in decline inmany parts of the world because ofover-fishing, industrial pollution,destruction of coastal habitats and othernatural factors such as increasing seatemperature. Similarly, mariculture isoften ravaged by disease or suffers fromthe accumulation of its own wastes.Therefore, in order to make the bestassessment of damages attributed tocontamination by oil it is necessary tomake comparisons of post-spill recoveryresults with the conditions which pre-existed the spill or with control areasoutside the affected area.

29

Conclusion

Pollution incidents can, and do, cause awide range of impacts in the marineenvironment, but it is all too often statedthat a particular event constitutes an“environmental disaster” with direconsequences for the survival of marineflora and fauna. The realityis that even after the largest oilspills, such as TORREY CANYON,AMOCO CADIZ, EXXON VALDEZ,NAKHODKA, ERIKA and PRESTIGE theaffected environments and associatedmarine life have recovered remarkablyquickly and with no overt signs of lasting

damage. Perhaps the most compellingfact is that fisheries and maricultureresources for which Brittany, Alaska,Japan and Galicia are famous hadrecovered to pre-spill levels within ayear. Nevertheless, the short-termenvironmental and economic impact isinvariably severe in a major incident andcan cause serious distress to the peopleliving near the contaminated coastline,affecting their livelihoods and impairingtheir quality of life , but it is reassuringthat natural processes can provide apositive recovery, assisted by anappropriate clean-up and sometimesaccelerated by restoration measures.

Civil Liability and FundConventions

Those affected by spills of persistent*crude oil and fuel oil from tankers benefitfrom a uniquely successful internationalcompensation regime that was firstdevised by the governments of maritimeStates within the IMO in the late 1960s,but which was updated in 1992, 2000and 2003. Under this two-tier regimeboth tanker owners and oil cargoreceivers contribute to the payment ofcompensation up to about US$1.2 billionaccording to the terms of the 1992 CivilLiability Convention (1992 CLC), the1992 Fund Convention and its 2003Protocol (Supplementary Fund).

The Conventions apply in any State thatchooses to ratify them, irrespective ofthe owner and flag of the tanker or theowner of the cargo. Most claims aresettled promptly without the need forlitigation because the liability of tankerowners is ‘strict’ (ie there is no need toprove fault).

As at 1 January, 2011, 105 States wereparty to both the 1992 CLC and 1992Fund Convention (see page 41).

* Whilst the term persistent oil is not precisely defined in any of the Conventions, the IOPC Funds havedeveloped guidelines which are widely accepted. Under these guidelines, an oil is considered non-persistent if at the time of shipment at least 50 per cent of the hydrocarbon fractions, by volume, distill ata temperature of 340 ˚C (645 ˚F), and at least 95 per cent of the hydrocarbon fractions, by volume, distillat a temperature of 370 ˚C (700 ˚F), when tested in accordance with the American Society for Testing andMaterials’ Method D86/78 or any subsequent revision thereof. Oils which are normally classified aspersistent include crude oils, fuel oils, heavy diesel and lubricating oils. Non-persistent oils includegasoline, light diesel oil and kerosene.

Spill Compensation

Twenty-seven of these States were alsoparty to the Supplementary Fund, whichentered into force in 2005.

1992 CLC Tanker owners are strictly liable to paycompensation for oil spill damage(including clean-up costs) within theExclusive Economic Zone of an affectedState, up to an amount determined bythe gross tonnage of the tanker which isthe source of the spill. In order toguarantee that tanker owners are able tomeet their maximum potential liabilitythe CLC requires that they maintainadequate financial security (normallythrough oil pollution insurance with aP&I Club). Claims for compensation maybe brought directly against the insurer,thereby avoiding any problems thatmight be involved in identifying andlocating the registered owner of thetanker. All these measures benefit thevictims. In return the tanker owner maylimit his liability to the defined amount,except in exceptional circumstances.

1992 Fund ConventionOn the relatively rare occasions thatvalid claims exceed the tanker owner’slimit of liability under the 1992 CLC,

30

31

additional compensation is providedunder the terms of the 1992 FundConvention. This is done throughthe International Oil PollutionCompensation Funds (1992 Fund).

Payments of compensation by the 1992Fund are financed by contributionslevied on oil companies and otherentities located in all 1992 Fund memberStates that receive crude oil and heavyfuel oil by sea. Contributions are onlysought after a spill in order to pay theresulting claims.

The 1992 Fund’s contributionarrangements are highly effective andensure that the costs of oil spills are sharedon a world-wide basis. They are alsosocially responsible since oil importingcompanies in ‘rich’ industrialised nationspay the majority of the compensation,irrespective of where the spill occurs. Byratifying the Conventions developingcountries which export oil or which do not

import more than 150,000 tonnes of crudeoil or heavy fuel oil can have access to thefull amount of compensation in the eventof a tanker spill at no cost to their oil orpower generating industries.

2003 Supplementary Fund A third tier of compensation forpollution damage caused by oil spillswas created with the adoption of aProtocol establishing an International OilPollution Compensation SupplementaryFund. This provides compensation overand above that available under the 1992Civil Liability and Fund regime and isdesigned to address the concerns ofthose States which consider that the1992 limits might be insufficient to coverall valid claims arising out of a majortanker accident. The Protocol is open toratification by any States party to the1992 Fund Convention. TheSupplementary Fund is financed bycontributions payable by oil receivers inthe States which ratify this instrument.

However, for the purpose ofcontributions it will be considered thatthere is a minimum aggregate quantityof 1 million tonnes of contributing oilreceived in each Member State of theSupplementary Fund.

Compensation LimitsThe liability of tanker owners underthe 1992 CLC ranges from 4.5 millionSpecial Drawing Rights (SDR) – aboutUS$ 7 million – for a small tanker (up to5,000 gross tons) to 90 million SDR –about US$ 139 million – for a tanker of140,000 or more gross tons.

A maximum of 203 million SDR – aboutUS$ 314 million – is available per incidentfrom the 1992 Fund, irrespective of thesize of the tanker (this figure includes thesum paid by the tanker owner or hisinsurer under the 1992 CLC).

An additional 547 million SDR(approximately US$ 846 million) isavailable to countries that opt to ratifythe 2003 Supplementary Fund. Asa result, the total amount of

compensation available for eachincident in such countries isapproximately US$ 1,160 million.

STOPIA & TOPIA

To ease the burden on oil receivers, avoluntary agreement has been reachedamongst owners of small tankersindemnified through members of theInternational Group of P&I Clubs tointroduce the Small Tanker Oil PollutionIndemnification Agreement (STOPIA2006). Under the terms of STOPIA 2006the liability in respect of incidentsinvolving tankers up to 29,548 GT isincreased to 20 million SDR – about$31 million. STOPIA 2006 applies toincidents involving participating tankersin all 1992 Fund Member States.A second agreement known as theTanker Oil Pollution IndemnificationAgreement (TOPIA 2006) provides forindemnification of the SupplementaryFund for 50% of the amounts paid incompensation by that Fund in respect ofincidents involving tankers entered in oneof the International Group P&I Clubs.

32

33

Claims HandlingP&I Clubs and the 1992 Fund co-operate closely in the assessment andsettlement of claims, usually using jointexperts such as ITOPF. In the event of amajor incident a local claims office isusually established to assist potentialclaimants and to facilitate thesubmission of claims.

Admissible ClaimsFor a claim to be admissible it must fallwithin the definition of pollutiondamage or preventive measures in the1992 CLC and Fund Convention. Auniform interpretation of the definitionsand a common understanding of whatconstitutes an admissible claim areessential for the efficient functioningof the international system ofcompensation. For this reason, theGovernments of the Member States ofthe 1992 Fund have established clearpolicies and guidelines, as summarisedin the organisation’s Claims Manual.

Admissible claims can fall under anumber of general headings:• Preventive measures (including clean-up)

• Damage to property• Economic losses• Reinstatement/restoration ofimpaired environments

Preventive Measures Claims for measures aimed atpreventing or minimising pollutiondamage may include the costs ofremoving oil (cargo and fuel) from adamaged tanker or a sunken tanker

wreck posing a serious pollution threat,as well as the costs of clean-upmeasures at sea, in coastal waters andon shorelines. The costs of disposing ofrecovered oil and associated debris arealso covered.

To qualify for compensation under theConventions, the costs as well as thepreventive measures themselves have tobe “reasonable”. This is generallyinterpreted to mean that the measurestaken or equipment used in response toan incident were, on the basis of an experttechnical appraisal at the time the decisionwas taken, likely to have been successfulin minimising or preventing pollutiondamage. The fact that the responsemeasures turned out to be ineffective orthe decision was shown to be incorrectwith the benefit of hindsight are notreasons in themselves for disallowing aclaim for the costs involved. A claim maybe rejected, however, if it was known thatthe measures would be ineffective butthey were instigated simply because, forexample, it was considered necessary “tobe seen to be doing something”. On thisbasis, measures taken for purely publicrelations reasons would not be consideredreasonable.

Property DamageClaims under this category wouldinclude the costs of cleaningcontaminated fishing gear, maricultureinstallations, yachts and industrial waterintakes. In cases of very severecontamination of fishing gear andmariculture equipment where effectivecleaning is impossible, replacement of

34

the damaged property may sometimesbe justified, with a reduction for normalwear and tear.

Economic LossSpills can result in economic lossthrough, for example, preventingfishing activity or causing a reduction intourism. Such economic losses may bethe direct result of physical damage to aclaimant’s property (“consequentialloss”) or may occur despite the fact thatthe claimant has not suffered anydamage to his own property (“pureeconomic loss”). An example of the firstcategory is the fisherman who cannotfish as a consequence of his boat andgear being contaminated by oil. In thesecond case the fisherman remains inport while there is oil on the water inorder to avoid damaging his propertybut then suffers “pure economic loss” ashe is prevented from fishing.

Claims for pure economic loss areadmissible only if they are for loss ordamage caused by oil contamination. Itis also necessary that there is areasonable degree of geographic andeconomic proximity between thecontamination and the loss or damagesustained by the claimant.

Reinstatement/Restoration of anImpaired EnvironmentClaims for impairment of the environ-ment are accepted only if the claimant hassustained an economic loss which can bequantified in monetary terms. Claimsbased on theoretical and speculative‘models’ or formulae are therefore not

admissible. On the other hand,compensation would be available for thecosts of reasonable measures ofreinstatement/restoration. However, forany such measures to be consideredadmissible they would have to satisfy anumber of criteria aimed at demonstratingthat they were technically feasible andlikely to enhance natural recovery, andthat the costs were reasonable and notdisproportionate to the expected results.

The costs of post-spill environmentalstudies are admissible to the extent thatthey concern pollution damage ascovered by the 1992 CLC and FundConvention.

Record KeepingThe speed with which claims are settleddepends largely upon how long it takesclaimants to provide the P&I insurer andthe 1992 Fund with the information theyrequire in a format that readily permitsanalysis.

35

For this reason it is vital during anyincident that records are kept of whatwas done, when, where and why inorder to support claims for the recoveryof the money spent in clean-up.Unfortunately, pressures to deal withpractical clean-up problems often resultin record keeping being given lessattention than it deserves. Theappointment of a financial controllerat an early stage of an incident canbe valuable, both to co-ordinateexpenditure and to ensure thatadequate records are maintained.

Bunker Spills Convention

Recognition of the problems that can becaused by spills of heavy bunker fuelfrom non-tankers led to the adoption ofthe International Convention on CivilLiability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage,which entered into force in 2008.

This IMO Convention seeks to ensure thatadequate compensation is promptlyavailable to persons who are required toclean up or who suffer damage as a result ofspills of ships’ bunker oil, who would nototherwise be compensated under the 1992CLC. Although strict liability under theBunker Spills Convention extends beyondthe registered owner to the bareboatcharterer, manager and operator of theship, the Convention only requires theregistered owner of ships greater than1,000 GT to maintain insurance or otherfinancial security. The level of cover mustbe equal to the limits of liability under theapplicable national or internationallimitation regime, but in no case exceeding

the amount calculated in accordance withthe Convention on Limitation of Liability forMaritime Claims, 1976, as amended.

HNS Convention

The International Convention onLiability and Compensation for Damagein Connection with the Carriage ofHazardous and Noxious Substances bySea (HNS Convention) was adopted bythe IMO in May 1996. It aims to ensureadequate, prompt and effectivecompensation for damage that mayresult from shipping accidents involvinghazardous and noxious substances.

The Convention entitles claimants tocompensation for loss or damage topersons, property and the environmentcaused by incidents involving cargoes ofoil, gases and chemicals, plus othersubstances which are hazardous inpackaged form. Pollution damage causedby persistent oils already covered by theCLC and Fund Convention is excluded,as is damage caused by radioactivematerials and coal.

The HNS Convention is modelled on theCLC and Fund Convention. Thus, theshipowner (and his P&I insurer) isstrictly liable to pay the first tier ofcompensation whereas the second tiercomes from a fund levied on cargoreceivers in all Contracting States on apost-event basis.

Shipowner liability ranges from SDR 10million (about US$ 15 million) for ships upto 2,000 GT, rising linearly through SDR 82

36

million (about US$ 127 million) for ships of50,000 GT, to a maximum of SDR 100million (about US$ 155 million) for shipsover 100,000 GT. It is compulsory for allships over 200 GT to have insurance tocover the relevant amount.

An HNS Fund (which will be administeredby the secretariat of the IOPC Funds) willprovide compensation up to a total of SDR250 million (US$ 387 million), inclusive ofship-owner liability but irrespective of shipsize. The HNS Fund will comprise fourseparate accounts for oil, LPG, LNG and ageneral account for other HNS substancessuch as bulk solids and chemicals. Eachseparate account will meet claimsattributable to the relevant cargo and willbe funded in proportion to total receipts ofrelevant cargoes in Contributing States.

The HNS Convention will enter intoforce 18 months after ratification by12 flag States, including four States eachrepresenting 2 million GT and Port Statesimporting an annual aggregate of 40million tonnes of chemicals and other solidbulk materials which are hazardous inpackaged form. As at 1 January 2011, theConvention had been ratified by 14 states.

A diplomatic conference, held in April2010, adopted a Protocol to theHNS Convention (2010 HNS Protocol),that was designed to address practicalproblems that have prevented many Statesfrom ratifying the original Convention.

Wreck Removal Convention

In May 2007 the IMO adopted the

Nairobi International Convention on theRemoval of Wrecks 2007, which willprovide the legal basis for States toremove, or have removed, shipwreckswhich pose a hazard to the safety ofnavigation or to the marine and coastalenvironments, or both. This Conventionis not yet in force.

National Laws

A number of countries have their owndomestic legislation for compensatingthose affected by spills of oil and othersubstances from ships. The mostcomprehensive example, which issummarised in the next section, is the USOil Pollution Act of 1990. Canada alsohas its own Ship-source Oil PollutionFund (SOPF) which can be used to payclaims arising from spills of bothpersistent and non-persistent oil from alltypes of ship. As Canada is party to the1992 CLC, Fund and SupplementaryFund Conventions, the SOPF would onlybecome involved in payingcompensation in a case falling within thescope of these Conventions if the totalvalue of the valid claims exceeded theSupplementary Fund limit.

Other countries have chosen not toratify the international Conventions andinstead rely on laws originallydeveloped for other purposes. This isfrequently an unsatisfactory solution forclaimants, shipowners and other partiesinvolved in a pollution incident, sincethe provisions of these laws may bepoorly known and of limited relevanceto shipping accidents.

37

In the wake of the EXXON VALDEZ oilspill in March 1989, US Congresspassed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990(OPA ‘90). It is a comprehensive pieceof legislation. Only those sections ofOPA ‘90 that relate to liability andcompensation for clean-up and damage,and to prevention and preparedness arebriefly summarised here. More detailedinformation, including a complete copyof the Act and associated regulations,can be accessed via the US CoastGuard’s website at www.uscg.mil.

It should be noted that OPA ‘90 doesnot prevent individual States in the USAfrom implementing their own morestringent oil spill laws and many havedone so.

Oil Pollution Liability andCompensationThe owner, operator or bareboatcharterer (“responsible party”) of avessel from which oil is discharged, orwhich poses a substantial threat ofdischarge, into the waters (out to theEEZ) of mainland USA or its overseasterritories and possessions, is strictlyliable for removal costs and damages.

Removal CostsRemoval costs are the costs incurred incontaining and removing oil from waterand shorelines, or taking other actionsin accordance with the NationalContingency Plan, to mitigate damage topublic health or welfare, including fish,

shellfish, wildlife, and public and privateproperty, shorelines and beaches.

DamagesA wide range of damages arespecifically covered by OPA ‘90. Theyinclude:

• real or personal property damage;• loss of profits or earning capacity;• loss of subsistence use of naturalresources;

• loss of Government revenues fromtaxes, royalties, rents, fees etc;

• cost of increased public services;• natural resource damage and thecosts of assessing such damage.

Any person or government who incursan allowable cost, damage or loss as aresult of an oil pollution incident maysubmit claims against the responsibleparty or its guarantor. In certaincircumstances claims may be submittedto the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

Oil Pollution Act of 1990

38

LimitsThe first layer of liability is placed on theresponsible party. In the case of tankvessels of less than 3,000 gross tons,this liability is the greater of US$ 3,200per gross ton or US$ 6.408 million forsingle hull tank vessels and US$ 2,000per gross ton or US$ 4.272 million fordouble hull tank vessels. For tankvessels of over 3,000 gross tons, it is thegreater of US$ 3,200 per gross ton orUS$ 23.496 million for single hull tankvessels and US$ 2,000 per gross ton orUS$ 17.088 million for double hull tankvessels. For other types of vessel (eg drycargo vessels) the limit is the greaterof US$ 1,000 per gross ton orUS$ 854,400. No liability is placed oncargo owners under OPA ‘90.

The owners of ships over 300 gross tonsmust obtain a Certificate of FinancialResponsibility (COFR) as evidence oftheir financial capability to satisfy themaximum liability under OPA ‘90.

A responsible party’s right to limitationunder OPA ‘90 can be easily lost. This

can happen if the incident was causedby gross negligence or wilfulmisconduct, or if any applicable Federalsafety, construction or operatingregulation is violated. The right to limitwill also be lost through a failure orrefusal to report the incident, to provideall reasonable co-operation andassistance requested by a responsibleofficial in connection with removalactivities, or to comply with an orderunder certain sections of other Acts.

Oil Spill Liability Trust FundIn general, the Oil Spill Liability TrustFund comes into operation when theresponsible party denies a claim or failsto settle it within 90 days, or when thefirst level of liability is insufficient tosatisfy all admissible claims forcompensation. In circumstances wherethe Trust Fund pays claims that theresponsible party has denied, it will laterseek to recover the costs of settlingthose claims from the responsible party.The Trust Fund will consider claims foroil removal costs, third party damagesand NRDA costs, although there are anumber of conditions which have to besatisfied, as well as restrictions as to whois able to claim from the Trust Fund.

The maximum amount of compensationavailable from the Trust Fund is$1 billion per incident. It derives itsmoney from a per barrel tax on importedand domestically produced oil. TheTrust Fund is administered by theNational Pollution Funds Center, whichproduces a helpful Claimant’s Guide.This is available from the Fund, the

39

address of which can be found onpage 49 or at www.uscg.mil/npfc/docs/PDFs/urg/ch6/NPFCclaimantguide.pdf.

PreventionThere are a considerable number ofsections in OPA ‘90 that deal with theprevention of oil spills, includingprovisions relating to the issue oflicences to seafarers; manningstandards for foreign tank vessels; USvessel traffic service systems; gaugingof plating thickness; overfill, tank leveland pressure monitoring devices; tankernavigation safety standards andmanning; and double hull requirementsfor tank vessels. This last provisionrequires the phasing out of single hullvessels by certain dates (depending onthe size and age of the tank vessels).

Vessel Response Plans The owners or operators of vessels over400 GT are required to have approvedplans for responding to a worst case

discharge of oil or hazardous substance,or substantial threat thereof. Such VesselResponse Plans (VRP) are required to beconsistent with the requirements of theNational Contingency Plan and AreaPlans and must:

(i) identify a Qualified Individual havingfull authority to implement removalactions;

(ii) identify and ensure the availability ofprivate personnel and equipmentnecessary to respond to a worst casedischarge or substantial threatthereof; and

(iii) describe the training, andequipment testing, periodicunannounced drills and responseactions of the crew.

VRPs have to be updated periodicallyand also have to be re-submitted forapproval after each significant change.

40

The International Convention on OilPollution Preparedness, Response

and Co-operation (OPRC) was adoptedin 1990 and entered into force in 1995.

The primary objective of OPRC 1990 isto facilitate international co-operationand mutual assistance between Statesand regions when preparing for, andresponding to, major oil pollutionincidents, and to encourage States todevelop and maintain an adequatecapability to deal with suchemergencies. OPRC 1990 covers oilspills from offshore oil exploration andproduction (E&P) platforms, ports, oilhandling facilities and ships.

By ratifying OPRC 1990 a State commitsitself to establishing a national systemfor responding promptly and effectivelyto oil pollution incidents. This shouldinclude, as a basic minimum, a nationalcontingency plan; designated nationalauthorities and focal points responsiblefor oil pollution preparedness andresponse; oil pollution reportingprocedures; and arrangements forhandling requests for assistance.

In addition, each party to the Convention,either individually or through bi- or multi-lateral co-operation, and in co-operationwith the oil and shipping industries, portauthorities and other relevant entities, isrequired to ensure:

OPRC Convention

• a minimum level of pre-positioned oilspill combating equipment;

• a programme of exercises for oilpollution response organisations;

• a training programme for relevantpersonnel;

• mechanisms or arrangements to co-ordinate the response to an oilpollution incident; and

• capabilities to mobilise resources.

The operators of ships, E&P facilities,ports and oil terminals are also requiredto prepare oil pollution emergencyplans. In the case of ships, this is thesame plan that is required underMARPOL – the Shipboard Oil PollutionEmergency Plan or SOPEP.

In 2000 a Protocol was introducedextending the provisions of OPRC 1990to encompass Hazardous and NoxiousSubstances (OPRC-HNS Protocol)which entered into force in 2007.

Operators of ships, ports and facilitieshandling HNS are required to haveemergency plans for dealing with aHNS incident. It is recommendedthat confirmation of specificrequirements is sought from therelevant Administration even if theAdministration with which the ship isregistered is not a party to the OPRC-HNS Protocol.

CLC

69CL

C 92

FUND

92Su

pp Fu

nd 03

OPRC

90OP

RC-H

NS 00

BUNK

ERS 0

1

CLC

69CL

C 92

FUND

92Su

pp Fu

nd 03

OPRC

90OP

RC-H

NS 00

BUNK

ERS 0

1

41

Germany x x x x x xGhana x x x xGreece x x x x x xGrenada x xGuatemala xGuinea x x xGuinea-BissauGuyana x xHaitiHonduras xHungary x x x xIceland x x xIndia x x xIndonesia x xIran x x xIraqIreland x x x x xIsrael x x xItaly x x x x +Jamaica x x x xJapan x x x x xJordan x x xKazakhstan xKenya x x xKiribati x x xKuwait x xLatvia o x x x x xLebanon x x xLesothoLiberia x x x x xLibya x xLithuania x x x x xLuxembourg x x xMadagascar x x xMalaysia x x x xMaldives x x xMaliMalta x x x x xMarshall Islands x x x xMauritania x xMauritius x x xMexico x x xMicronesia Moldova xMonaco x x xMongolia x xMontenegroMorocco x x x x xMozambique x x xMyanmarNamibia x x xNauruNetherlands x x x x x +New Zealand x x xNicaragua xNigeria x x x xNorth Korea xNorway x x x x x

Oman x x xPakistan x xPalauPanama x x xPapua New Guinea x xPeru x x xPhilippines x xPoland x x x x x xPortugal x x x x xQatar x x xRomania x x xRussian Federation x x x xSaint Kitts and Nevis x x x x xSaint Lucia x x xSt. Vincent &Grenadines x x xSamoa x x x xSao Tome & Principe xSaudi Arabia x x xSenegal x xSerbia x xSeychelles x x xSierra Leone x x x xSingapore x x x x xSlovakiaSlovenia x x x x x xSolomon Islands xSomaliaSouth Africa x x xSouth Korea x x x x x xSpain x x x x x xSri Lanka x xSudanSurinameSweden x x x x xSwitzerland x x xSyria x x x x x xTanzania x x xThailand xTogoTonga x x x xTrinidad & Tobago x x xTunisia x x xTurkey x x xTurkmenistan x xTuvalu x x xUkraine xUnited Arab Emirates x x xUnited Kingdom x x x x xUnited States xUruguay x x x xUzbekistanVanuatu x x x x xVenezuela x x xViet Nam x xYemen x

Status of International ConventionsThis table shows which countries were parties to the 1969 CLC, 1992 CLC, 1992 Fund Convention, 2003Supplementary Fund, 1990 OPRC, OPRC-HNS and Bunkers Convention as at 1 January 2011. x denotesthat the Convention was in force in that country, whereas + denotes that it had been ratified but was notyet in force. o denotes that the country had denounced that Convention but that it had not yet takeneffect. For a current list see the IMO or IOPC Fund websites (www.imo.org; www.iopcfund.org).

CLC

69CL

C 92

FUND

92Su

pp Fu

nd 03

OPRC

90OP

RC-H

NS 00

BUNK

ERS 0

1Albania x x x xAlgeria x x xAngola x x xAntigua & Barbuda x x x xArgentina x x xAustralia x x x x x xAustriaAzerbaijan x x x xBahamas x x x xBahrain x xBangladesh xBarbados x x x xBelarusBelgium x x x xBelize x xBenin x + + xBosnia &HerzegovinaBrazil x xBrunei Darussalam x xBulgaria x x x xCambodia x x xCameroon x x xCanada x x x x xCape Verde x x xChile x x x xChina x x x xChina (Hong Kongspec.admin.region) x x xColombia x x x xComoros x x xCongo x x xCook Islands x x xCosta Rica xCote d’Ivoire xCroatia x x x x xCuba xCyprus x x xCzech RepublicDem. Rep. of theCongoDenmark x x x x x xDjibouti x x xDominica x x xDominican Republic x x xEcuador x x x x xEgypt x x x x xEl Salvador x x xEquatorial Guinea xEritreaEstonia x x x x x xEthiopia xFiji x xFinland x x x x xFrance x x x x x +Gabon x x xGambia xGeorgia x x x x

ITOPF produces a wide range oftechnical publications and papers, anumber of which are available withoutcharge. A small charge is made forothers, as indicated below.

Technical Information Papers

ITOPF’s Technical Information Papers(TIPs) cover a specific topic in a concisemanner (8-12 pages), illustrated by colourphotographs and diagrams. The series iscurrently being updated and expanded toreflect technological advances and ITOPF’smore recent collective experience on awide range of oil pollution topics. Neweditions of the following TIPs will beavailable later this year; further details willbe emailed to Members and associatedgroups at that time.

• Aerial Observation of Oil • Fate of Marine Oil Spills• Use of Dispersants to Treat Oil Spills• Use of Booms in Combating OilPollution

• Use of Skimmers in Combating OilPollution

• Recognition of Oil on Shorelines • Shoreline Clean-up• Use of Sorbent Materials• Disposal of Oil and Debris• Oil Spill Effects on Fisheries • Effects of Oil Pollution on EconomicActivities

• Effects of Oil Pollution on theEnvironment

Publications

• Sampling• Record Keeping and Preparation ofClaims

• Contingency Planning• Command & Control of Oil Spills• Response to Chemical incidents

Individual copies are free of charge. Ifmultiple sets are required, a charge of £1per TIP (excluding postage) is made.

Response to Marine Oil Spills

A comprehensive review of theproblems posed by marine oil spills andavailable response measures. This bookis currently being revised and a newedition is due to be published later thisyear.

Copies will be available from:

Witherby Seamanship International4 Dunlop Square, Deans EstateLivingston EH54 8SBTel: + 44 (0) 1506 463 227Fax: + 44 (0) 1506 468 999E-mail: info@emailws.com

Oil Spill Compensation

A joint ITOPF/IPIECA briefing guide onthe International Conventions onLiability and Compensation for OilPollution Damage. Updated in 2007,the guide provides a summary ofthe fundamental features of the

42

43

Conventions and comprises anexplanatory text and a series of answersto frequently asked questions. Copiescan be downloaded from the IPIECAwebsite (www.ipieca.org).

The ERIKA – DVD

ITOPF assisted in the production of this30-minute film, which provides agraphic account of this major oil spill offFrance in December 1999, includingthe clean-up operations and themechanisms for compensating thosewhose livelihoods were affected.Copies are available at a cost of £10.00from Steamship Mutual UnderwritingAssociation Ltd:

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7247 5490Web: www.simsl.comE-mail: steamship@simsl.com

The Real Story – theEnvironmental Impact ofthe BRAER – video

A 30-minute video, produced by theMarine Laboratory in Scotland, whichsummarises the main findings of thescientific studies into the impact of thismajor oil spill in Shetland in January 1993.

Available from ITOPF at £10.00 in PALand NTSC versions.

Ocean Orbit

ITOPF’s newsletter with reports andarticles on developments concerningspill preparedness, response, effectsand compensation.

Annual Review

A review of ITOPF’s activities during theprevious 12 months, including theDirectors’ Report and Accounts.

Miscellaneous Papers

A wide range of papers presented byITOPF staff at conferences, seminarsand workshops, or published injournals are available on our website(www.itopf.com).

Managing Director

Dr Karen Purnell is a chartered chemist and a member of the RoyalSociety of Chemistry. Prior to joining ITOPF in 1994 she was aproject manager involved in nuclear/toxic waste management andenvironmental remediation. She was appointed Managing Director inMay 2009.

Technical Director

Richard Johnson is a marine biologist and holds a masters degree inradiation and environmental protection. His previous employmentincluded investigation of fallout from the Chernobyl accident and assessingradioactive contamination of the marine environment. He joined ITOPF in1994.

Technical Team Managers

Dr Michael O’Brien is a natural resource economist. Prior to joiningITOPF in 2001 he worked in the USA for the NOAA Damage AssessmentCenter. Before that he was an Assistant Professor for EnvironmentalEconomics at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

Dr Franck Laruelle is a marine biologist and before joining ITOPF in2006 worked with the French research organisation CEDRE. He acted asa technical adviser on behalf of the French government in a number ofspills, including ERIKA and PRESTIGE.

Senior Technical Advisers

Alex Hunt is a marine biologist with a masters degree in tropical coastalmanagement. Before joining ITOPF in 2004 he worked as a scientificcoordinator and research diver on coastal resource assessment andhabitat mapping projects in Indonesia, the Philippines, Nicaragua andPuerto Rico.

Andrew Tucker has a degree in biology and a masters degree inenvironmental science. He worked for the UK Environment Agency inthe fields of waste management, contaminated land and environmentalprotection before joining ITOPF in 2004.

Staffing

44

45

Colleen O’Hagan has a degree in geophysics and a masters degree inremote sensing and image processing. She joined ITOPF in 2004 asa Technical Support Co-ordinator and became a Technical Adviserin 2006.

Dr Mark Whittington is a marine biologist with a background infisheries, aquaculture and environmental monitoring. Prior to joiningITOPF in 2007, he worked in marine consultancy in the UK and on coastalzone management projects in East Africa and the Middle East.

Technical Advisers

Kelly Reynolds has a degree in maritime environmental managementand a masters degree in coastal zone management. Before joining ITOPFin 2008, she worked for the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency in theCounter Pollution Response Branch.

Dr Henk Renken is a marine ecologist and has a masters degree intropical coastal management. Before joining ITOPF in 2009 he worked asa project manager for the Bonaire National Marine Park and as aconsultant on coastal/marine conservation projects in Sri Lanka andVietnam with a focus on mangroves, coral reefs and seagrasses.

Dr Rebecca Coward has a degree in marine environmental science andconducted research and development into non polluting antifoulingtechnology as a postgraduate. Prior to joining ITOPF in 2010, she wasinvolved in pollution tracing, identification and remediation ofwatercourses on behalf of Thames Water.

Dr Annabelle Nicolas is an organic chemist with a masters degree inchemical engineering. She joined ITOPF in 2011.

Technical Support Manager

Tim Wadsworth has degrees in engineering and law and joined ITOPF in1991. He became Technical Support Manager in 2006 and is responsible forall of ITOPF’s technical support functions, including the assessment of claims.

Senior Technical Support Co-ordinator

Lisa Stevens has a degree in physics with satellite technology. Beforejoining ITOPF in 2006, she worked at a defence and technology companyon their satellite programme and information mapping service. Herresponsibilities include maintaining ITOPF’s databases, intranet and GIS.

Technical Support Co-ordinators

Susannah Musk has a degree in marine biology and coastal ecology anda background in dangerous goods insurance. Before joining ITOPF inDecember 2009 she investigated the effects of tourism upon dolphinbehaviour in Bali, Indonesia. Her responsibilities at ITOPF includemaintaining the oil spill database, statistics and claims assessment.

Iain Harrison has a masters degree in law and environmental science.He has previously worked as an environmental consultant and anunderwriter. He joined ITOPF in 2010 and his duties include claimsassessment and other project work.

Information Officer

Deborah Ansell has an MA in librarianship and joined ITOPF in 1996from the Institute of Petroleum Library. She is responsible for maintainingITOPF’s extensive library of technical publications, the website and theCountry Profiles.

IT Systems Manager

Chris Pavey joined ITOPF in 2006 as IT Support Technician. He waspromoted in 2011 to IT Systems Manager and is responsible formaintaining ITOPF’s IT systems.

Finance and Administration Manager

Amanda Howarth has an MBA and joined ITOPF in 2000. She has over10 years’ experience of the tanker industry and 20 years’ experience inmanagerial accounts. Her responsibilities at ITOPF include themanagement of its financial affairs, membership procedures and companyadministration.

46

47

Membership Secretary

Karen Young joined ITOPF in 2008, having previously worked in amembership administration role at the Institute of Marine Engineering,Science and Technology (IMarEST). She is responsible for all mattersrelating to Membership, including the issuance of Membership RecordForms and liaising with relevant parties.

Finance Officer

Doreen Pounds has over 30 years’ accounts experience and joinedITOPF in 2001. She is responsible for ITOPF’s accounting transactions,including the collection of Membership and Associate dues.

Administration and Personnel Assistant

Carol Remnant joined ITOPF in 2001. She is an Associate Member ofthe Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, with over 10years’ practical human resources experience. She is responsible for allITOPF’s personnel related issues, as well as additional administrativetasks.

Senior Technical Group Secretary

Enya Elswood has a degree in industrial design and joined ITOPF in2005. Her main duties include secretarial support to the technicalmanagers and their teams. Enya is also responsible for arranging travelfor members of the technical department and oversees the maintenanceof ITOPF’s central filing and email tracking system.

Technical Group Secretary

Carla Smith has a background in entrepreneurship and business studies.She previously worked for a global consultancy firm as PA to thedirectors prior to joining ITOPF in May 2009. Her main duties involveproviding secretarial support to the technical group.

Receptionist/Secretary to the Managing Director

Terry Goodchild worked for a market research company prior to joiningITOPF in 2002. As well as acting as Receptionist, she is the ManagingDirector's Secretary, undertakes general clerical duties and is responsiblefor the distribution of ITOPF's publications.

International Tanker Owners PollutionFederation Limited (ITOPF)1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City RoadLondon EC1Y 1HQTel: + 44 (0)20 7566 6999Fax: + 44 (0)20 7566 6950Email: central@itopf.comWeb: www.itopf.com

International Maritime Organization (IMO)4 Albert EmbankmentLondon SE1 7SRTel: + 44 (0)20 7735 7611Fax: + 44 (0)20 7587 3210Email: info@imo.orgWeb: www.imo.org

International Oil Pollution CompensationFunds (IOPC Funds)Portland House, Bressenden PlaceLondon SW1E 5PNTel: + 44 (0)20 7592 7100Fax: + 44 (0)20 7592 7111Email: info@iopcfund.orgWeb: www.iopcfund.org

International Chamber of Shipping (ICS)12 Carthusian StreetLondon EC1M 6EZTel: + 44 (0)20 7417 8844Fax: + 44 (0)20 7417 8877Email: post@marisec.orgWeb: www.marisec.org

International Group of P&I ClubsPeek House, 20 EastcheapLondon EC3M 1EBTel: + 44 (0)20 7929 3544Fax: + 44 (0)20 7621 0675Email: secretariat@internationalgroup.org.ukWeb:www.igpandi.org

Useful Addresses

International Association of IndependentTanker Owners (Intertanko)Oslo Office: PO Box 761, Sentrum 0106,Oslo, NorwayTel: + 47 22 12 26 40Fax: + 47 22 12 26 41Email: oslo@intertanko.comWeb: www.intertanko.com

London Office: St Clare House30-33 Minories, London EC3N 1DDTel: + 44 (0)20 7977 7010Fax: + 44 (0)20 7977 7011E-mail: london@intertanko.com

Asian Office: 5 Temasek Boulevard#12-07 Suntec City Tower 5Singapore 038985Tel: + 65 6333 4007Fax: + 65 6333 5004E-mail: singapore@intertanko.com

US Office: 801 North Quincy StreetSuite 200, Arlington, Virginia 22203Tel: +1 703 373 2269Fax: +1 703 841 0389E-mail: washington@intertanko.com

Brussels Office: Rue du Congrès 37-41Brussels, 1000 BelgiumTel: +32 (0)2 609 5440Fax: +32 (0)2 609 5449Email: brussels@intertanko.com

Oil Companies International MarineForum (OCIMF)29 Queen Anne’s GateLondon SW1H 9BUTel: + 44 (0)20 7654 1200Fax: + 44 (0)20 7654 1205Email: enquiries@ocimf.comWeb: www.ocimf.com

48

49

International Underwriting Association(IUA)London Underwriting Centre3 Minster Court, Mincing LaneLondon EC3R 7DDTel: + 44 (0)20 7617 4444Fax: + 44 (0)20 7617 4440Email: info@iua.co.ukWeb: www.iua.co.uk

International Salvage Union (ISU)2nd Floor, St Clare House,30-33 Minories, London EC3N 1BPEmail: isu@marine-salvage.comWeb: www.marine-salvage.com

International Association ofClassification Societies (IACS)6th Floor, 36 BroadwayLondon SW1H 0BHTel: + 44 (0)20 7976 0660Fax: + 44 (0)20 7808 1100Email: permsec@iacs.org.ukWeb: www.iacs.org.uk

BIMCOBagsværdvej 161, 2880 BagsværdDenmarkTel: + 45 44 36 68 00Fax: + 45 44 36 68 68Email: mailbox@bimco.orgWeb: www.bimco.org

International Association of DryCargo Shipowners (Intercargo)9th Floor, St Clare House30-33 Minories, London EC3N 1DDTel: + 44 (0)20 7977 7030Fax: + 44 (0)20 7977 7011Email: info@intercargo.orgWeb: www.intercargo.org

International Petroleum IndustryEnvironmental Conservation Association(IPIECA)5th Floor, 209-215 Blackfriars RoadLondon SE1 8NLTel:+ 44 (0)20 7633 2388Fax: + 44 (0)20 7633 2389Web: www.ipieca.org

International Association of Oil andGas Producers (OGP)5th Floor, 209-215 Blackfriars RoadLondon SE1 8NLTel:+ 44 (0)20 7633 0272Fax: + 44 (0)20 7633 2350Web: www.ogp.org.uk

Regional Marine Pollution EmergencyResponse Centre for the MediterraneanSea (REMPEC)Maritime House, Lascaris WharfValletta VLT 1921, MaltaTel: + 356 21 33 72 96/7/8Fax: + 356 21 33 99 51Email: rempec@rempec.orgWeb: www.rempec.org

RAC/REMPEITC-CARIBESeru Mahuma z/nAviation and Meteorology BuildingWillemstadCuraçaoNetherlands AntillesTel: + 599 9868 4612Fax: + 599 9868 4996Email: rempeitc@cep.unep.orgWeb: www.cep.unep.org/racrempeitc

National Pollution Funds CenterUS Coast Guard4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000Arlington, Virginia VA20598-7100, USATel: + 1 202 493 6700Fax: + 1 202 493 6900Email: arl-pf-npfcclaimsinfo@uscg.milWeb: www.uscg.mil/npfc

1. Membership of The International TankerOwners Pollution Federation Limited(“ITOPF”) is subject to ITOPF’sMemorandum and Articles of Associationand to these Terms and Conditions, whichapply to all Owners who are Members ofITOPF as at 20th February, 1999, and to allOwners who thereafter are accepted forMembership. The Directors of ITOPF havethe right from time to time to add to ormodify these Terms and Conditions. Anysuch additions or modifications and theireffective date will be notified to Members.

2. Membership of ITOPF is available only toan owner or demise charterer (“Owner”) of atanker, being any ship (whether or not self-propelled) designed, constructed oradapted for the carriage by water in bulk ofcrude petroleum, hydrocarbon products andany other liquid substance (“Tanker”).

3. A Member is required to notify ITOPF (orensure that ITOPF is notified) in writing fromtime to time of the name and tonnage ofTankers of which it is or becomes Owner andin respect of which it wishes to be entitled tothe services of ITOPF. A Member who is nolonger the Owner of any Tanker whosename and tonnage have been so notifiedshall automatically cease to be a Member ofITOPF.

4. Subject to these Terms and Conditions, aMember has the right to request ITOPF toprovide technical and other services, adviceand information (“Services”) in relation to:

a) a spill (or the threat thereof)from a Tanker, including on-siteattendance to give technical advice withthe aim of effecting an efficient responseoperation and mitigating any damage;

Terms and Conditions of Membership(effective 20th February, 1999)

b) the technical assessment of damagecaused by a spill from a Tanker;

c) the technical assessment of claims forcompensation resulting from a spill (orthe threat thereof) from a Tanker;

d) oil pollution contingency planning,response techniques, oil spill effects andcompensation for oil pollution damage;

e) oil spill training courses, drills,exercises and similar events; and

f) the provision of such of ITOPF’spublications as are for circulation toMembers and such other generalinformation and advice as is within thescope of ITOPF’s Services.

5. It is a condition of entitlement to Servicesthat the Member’s ITOPF subscription hasbeen paid in respect of the current yearcommencing 20th February and for all priorperiods of Membership, either directly or byanother body on the Member’s behalf, andin respect of all Tankers notified pursuant toparagraph 3 of which the Member is theOwner.

6. Although under no obligation to solicit orobtain such information, ITOPF reserves theright from time to time to request any Memberor its insurer to provide informationsatisfactory to ITOPF concerning theMembers’ pollution liability insurance cover. Itis a condition of entitlement to Services thatany Member or its insurer of which such arequest is made will duly comply.

7. ITOPF reserves the right to recover costsincurred in respect of the provision of anyServices from a Member, on whose behalfsuch costs are incurred. ITOPF will not

50

51

1. Associate status of The InternationalTanker Owners Pollution FederationLimited (“ITOPF”) is subject to these Termsand Conditions, which apply to allAssociates of ITOPF as at 20th February,1999, and to all persons who thereafterbecome Associates. The Directors of ITOPFhave the right from time to time to add to ormodify these Terms and Conditions.

2. Associate status of ITOPF is availableonly to such persons as the Directors ofITOPF may determine being an owner ordemise charterer (“Owner”) of any shipother than a tanker (“Ship”). For thesepurposes “tanker” means any ship(whether or not self-propelled) designed,constructed or adapted for the carriage bywater in bulk of crude petroleum,hydrocarbon products and any otherliquid substance.

3. An Associate may be required to notifyITOPF (or ensure that ITOPF is notified) in

Terms and Conditions of Associate Status(effective 20th February, 1999)

writing from time to time of the name andtonnage of Ships of which it is or becomesOwner and in respect of which it wishes tobe entitled to the services of ITOPF. AnAssociate who is no longer the Owner ofany Ship shall automatically cease to be anAssociate of ITOPF.

4. Subject to these Terms and Conditions,an Associate has the right to requestITOPF to provide technical and otherservices, advice and information(“Services”) in relation to:

a) a spill (or the threat thereof) from aShip, including on-site attendance togive technical advice with the aim ofeffecting an efficient responseoperation and mitigating any damage;

b) the technical assessment ofdamage caused by a spill from a Ship;

c) the technical assessment of claims

normally charge a fee for providing Services toa Member but may do so from time to timewhen circumstances warrant at ITOPF’sdiscretion. It is a condition of entitlement toServices that a Member will agree to, andarrange for, the payment of such costs and feeswhen so requested by ITOPF.

8. ITOPF reserves the right not to respondeither in whole or in part to any request byor on behalf of a Member for the provisionof Services whether because of a failure onthe part of the Member to meet a conditionset by ITOPF, or because of a lack of

available ITOPF staff capacity, or for anyreason which in ITOPF’s opinion mightadversely affect ITOPF, the safety of its staff,or the provision of the Services requested.In the case of competing demands for itsServices, ITOPF will normally give priority toits Members.

9. To the extent permitted by law, ITOPF shallhave no liability to any Member or other personfor any direct, indirect, special or consequentialloss, expenses and/or costs arising out of or inconnection with the provision of, or failure toprovide, any Services.

Note: Membership of ITOPF and payment of the relevant subscription referred to in paragraph 5 of theseTerms and Conditions of Membership is normally arranged by a tanker owner’s P&I insurer. Thissubscription is currently calculated on the basis of 0.56 of a UK penny per gross ton of entered Tankers.

52

for compensation resulting from a spill(or the threat thereof) from a Ship;

d) oil pollution contingency planning,response techniques and oil spill effects;

e) oil spill training courses, drills,exercises and similar events; and

f) the provision of such of ITOPF’spublications as are for generalcirculation and such other generalinformation and advice as is within thescope of ITOPF’s Services.

5. ITOPF will charge each Associate anannual subscription to assist in meeting itsgeneral expenses. It is a condition ofentitlement to Services that theAssociate’s ITOPF subscription has beenpaid in respect of the current yearcommencing 20th February and for allprior periods of Associate status, eitherdirectly or by another body on theAssociate’s behalf and in respect of allShips notified pursuant to paragraph 3 ofwhich the Associate is the Owner. If in awinding-up of ITOPF there remains anysurplus which is attributable to Associates’subscriptions, that surplus shall bedistributed among Associates inproportion to the amounts subscribed bythem.

6. Although under no obligation to solicitor obtain such information, ITOPF reservesthe right from time to time to request anyAssociate or its insurer to provideinformation satisfactory to ITOPFconcerning the Associate’s pollutionliability insurance cover. It is a condition ofentitlement to Services that any Associate

or its insurer of which such a request ismade will duly comply.

7. ITOPF reserves the right to recover costsincurred in respect of the provision of anyServices from an Associate on whose behalfsuch costs are incurred. ITOPF will notnormally charge a fee for providing Servicesto an Associate but may do so from time totime when circumstances warrant at ITOPF’sdiscretion. It is a condition of entitlement toServices that an Associate will agree to, andarrange for, the payment of such costs andfees when so requested by ITOPF.

8. ITOPF reserves the right not to respondeither in whole or in part to any request byor on behalf of an Associate for theprovision of Services whether because ofa failure on the part of the Associate tomeet a condition set by ITOPF, or becauseof a lack of available ITOPF staff capacity,or for any reason which in ITOPF’s opinionmight adversely affect ITOPF, the safety ofits staff, or the provision of the Servicesrequested. In the case of competingdemands for Services, ITOPF will normallygive priority to its Members.

9. To the extent permitted by law, ITOPFshall have no liability to any Associate orother person for any direct, indirect,special or consequential loss, expensesand/or costs arising out of or inconnection with the provision of, orfailure to provide, any Services.

10. Notices to Associates may be given insuch manner as ITOPF may determine andshall be deemed given if given to anAssociate’s insurer or by way of pressadvertisement.

Note: ITOPF Associate Status and payment of the relevant subscription referred to in paragraph 5 of theseTerms and Conditions of Associate Status is normally arranged by a shipowner’s P&I insurer. Thissubscription is currently calculated on the basis of 0.34 of a UK penny per gross ton of entered ships.

1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1HQ

Tel: +44 (0)20 7566 6999Fax: +44 (0)20 7566 695024hr: +44 (0)7623 984 606Email: central@itopf.comWebsite:www.itopf.com

THE INTERNATIONAL TANKER OWNERSPOLLUTION FEDERATION LIMITED

© ITO

PF Ltd 2011 Designed and produced by Im

pact PR & Design Lim

ited, Canterbury, U

K.