(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
On 25 September 2002, the 20.000 tonne tanker "Saratov" departed from the new oil port Varandei in Nenets in the direction of Murmansk.
A new era was initiated. Unexpectedly, Russia was carrying oil along our elongated coast. Norway was not informed of this. The Varandei terminal had been under construction for several years, and in 2002 240.000 tonnes of oil were shipped.
In the coming years, Russia's economy will base much of its growth on oil extraction in our immediate areas. The country has for many years accumulated expertise in the transport of oil along canals and by rail wagons. In June 2003, the Russians started transporting oil along the Kvitsjökanalen. Transport to Murmansk is expected to increase.
But the country also plans through the four major oil companies Yukos, Lukoil, TKN and Sibneft to build an oil pipeline to Murmansk, planned to be completed in 2007. One then estimates that it can export between 60 and 100 million tonnes of oil annually from this area, and mainly take out oil on ships of up to 300.000 tonnes.
Warning “Moscow”
Reports Oil transport from the Russian part of the Barents region published by the Svanhovd Environmental Center, shows that the extent of the oil transport has come as a surprise to the Norwegian authorities.
Traffic with oil tankers increased in number from 160 in 2002 to 250 in 2003. Alone discharges of ballast water entail biological risks few have debated.
The fear of a breakdown with these vessels was intensified when "Moscow" on 25 June 2003 had its engine stopped only 20 kilometers from Honningsvåg. But the weather gods were on the Norwegian side, and the ship got the engines started after four or five hours.
No warships were located outside northern Norway, and the nearest tugboat was 10 hours away. "Moscow" had a drift towards land at half a nautical mile per hour, but if there had been a storm, the boat would have been in the spring rocks in a few hours.
The report in question leaves the impression that the Russians have been lazy in reporting which maritime operations are underway. We experienced this with the shipwreck of the nuclear submarine "Komsomolets" on April 7, 1989, "Kursk" on August 12, 2000 and "K-159" on August 30 last year.
The report points to the thought-provoking fact that "the Norwegian authorities were not automatically notified when there was a dramatic change in the scope of oil transport from northwestern Russia". The report believes it is important to obtain information that can contribute to documenting developments in the petroleum industry in the area, including the offensive plans for transport along the Norwegian coast.
The gas deposits are gigantic; while total Norwegian quantities are estimated at 12,3 billion Sm3 (June 2003), the volume in the Russian Arctic is estimated at 90 billion Sm3 oil equivalents (PETRO magazine 3/2003).
Much of this can be transported along the coast.
Violent increase
With the plans unveiled in Russia, we can in 2010 transport 150 million tonnes of refined, crude and thick oil along the Norwegian coast. The 2003 transport was estimated at approx. 4,5 million tonnes, but is expected to double for 2004.
In 2010, 320 tankers of 250.000 tonnes and 500 of 100.000 may pass the Northern Cape.
But all this winter we will have at least one passage per day to the south with ships of different sizes, with unknown standards and highly uncertain ownership. We will not be able to be sure of the skills of seafarers on board.
Oil transport in northern waters of such dimensions is something new. For most captains, encounters with waves of 10-12 meters, dark and snowy, icing and hurricane will be something quite different from sailing in the Mediterranean, for example.
Many of us remember "John R" who on the first day of Christmas 1 ran aground in Karlsøy, broke in two and leaked a few hundred tonnes of bunker oil. In the sea declaration, the captain said that the grounding could be due to the cold sea that the rudder did not obey. Now it's about something completely different. What does Norway have to offer?
waste
We have made a choice, but oil transport has not been a topic of contention. The municipal minister has talked about competition, but we have not seen a single shipowner in action to compete for the protection of our coast.
The mayor of Nordkapp called for a sound oil supply on 15 September 2003 (Aftenposten). The Minister of Fisheries has been under the canon of the coastal people. The winter has not given us the major storms, but everything September 14 last year noted the Torsvåg lighthouse hurricane.
At the beginning of November, a relieved minister could explain that two tugs with more than 100 bollards of traction were hired outside the navy's "Valkyrie", "Skandi Beta" and "Norman Trym", the first for NOK 43 million per year, the second to 23 million over ten years.
Torstein Myhre, who led the Coast Guard North from 1990-95, believes this a solid waste of money. In addition, the coordination of who is going to do what in a disaster situation is lacking.
Russian roulette
The Russian oil transport has for many years caused problems to the Turkish authorities due to the large oil transport of around 80 million tonnes annually through the Bosphorus.
The Russians want to step it up, but the Turkish parliament has been very fierce in the debate, for fear of a collision and wildfire that could cost thousands of people's lives.
In December 2001, Russia opened the new Primorsk terminal in the Gulf of Finland, which has led to increased transport through the vulnerable Baltic Sea. In total, there are 11 oil terminals in the northern part of this sea, three in Russia, one in Estonia, four in Latvia and two in Lithuania. Three more are under construction.
President Putin has announced that Russian oil should be transported via its own terminals, despite the fact that there is already a large export capacity from the existing facilities. Russia is de facto waging a form of economic war against the Baltic states. Exports in 2003 are expected to reach 40 million tonnes this year, with a doubling all by 2005 (source: Lloyd's list 27 / 5-2003).
Transport via the Baltic Sea is considered by some to be a form of Russian roulette. Last winter meant four to five months of ice between 0,5 and 1,0 meters and major problems. In a television program, a representative from the Finnish coastguard almost spoke as if one was facing a new winter war.
The oil transport has led to some debate in the Norwegian press, but it has far from reached the temperature when Hagen supporter Martin Schanche clubbed an opponent during the election campaign.
It is therefore a cross of thought that the Norwegian oil spill preparedness is far from being in place. Only one of the Coast Guard ships capable of operating 337 helicopters works satisfactorily. For example, because the MTB scavenger drone at Olavsvern near Tromsø has been moved to Håkonsvern near Bergen, many feel that the region no longer has any value. An important condition for Norwegian sovereignty in the northern areas to be called legitimate is both a certain population density and the presence of the Armed Forces.
A defense budget
The Government can point out that the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) has seven emergency depots north of Ørlandet and the Norwegian Oil Conservation Association for Operators (NOFO) has two depots in Northern Norway.
We have oil lenses suitable for good weather and summer temperatures. But according to the emergency manager at the County Governor of Finnmark, last winter we did not have any lenses that could be used in severe cold or waves of more than two to three meters. In addition, when we depopulate the lighthouses so that seafarers cannot get physical help and the electricity supply fails, the authorities have further weakened the readiness (Source: Makkaur lighthouse and Vardø harbor authority).
The most famous accidents with tankers, "Torry Canyon" in 1966, "Exxon Valdez" in 1986 and "Prestige" in 2002 still cause major damage.
After "Exxon Valdez" crashed in the Prince William Sound and spilled 39.000 tonnes of oil, the clean-up operations alone have cost NOK 15 billion, and the settlement has not been completed. The accident with "Prestige" amounts so far to NOK 20 billion after 64.000 tonnes of oil have been leaked (Source: TIME 8 / 9-2003).
There are fewer and fewer accidents that do not attract much attention. But if, for example, "Moscow" had ended up in the spring rocks in the big storm, oil would have covered thousands of kilometers of beaches in a short time.
In that case, the cost could have been NOK 30 billion, or a Norwegian defense budget or what the fisheries provide us with export turnover. Nordland alone has 23.000 kilometers of coastline, while Troms and Finnmark have 12.000 km.
New Chernobyl?
In the Baltic Sea, the peripheral states promote requirements for common regulations for all vessels, requirements for ice class and icebreaker capacity, own deepwater routes, phasing out vessels with single hulls, measures against the spread of biologically polluting material with ballast water, strengthened pilotage and special escorts in exposed waters and acceptance of the Baltic Sea. “Particular Sensitive Sea Area”.
Some call for reliable shipowners that can be controlled.
The Ministry of Fisheries has signed a letter of intent with 100 Norwegian fishing boat owners to send fishing vessels to the rescue. When fishmongers say they can keep the big tanks stand-by even in storms, one has to wonder which country they come from.
When the Minister of Fisheries wants to put end-of-life barges from the Armed Forces into readiness with oil lenders, it is certainly well intended. But professionals at the Norwegian Coastal Administration and fishermen with experience from the Barents Sea agree that such can be a supplement at best.
The closures increase the dangers, for example by the fact that Vardø radio is no longer available and that the lighthouse in the city is automated and falls into storms. Despite the tugs in place, increased traffic with oil and later gas along the coast will require very extensive measures to prevent a Chernobyl disaster in the spring rocks.
On January 12, Minister Ludvigsen convened an emergency meeting in Honningsvåg with 60 participants from municipalities and counties in the north. After January 1, Norway has expanded the territorial boundary from four to 12 nautical miles. There was a stir during the meeting when Coast Director Øyvind Stene stated that the oil vessels can sail all the way up to the baseline west of the North Cape, east of the sailing route a little within 12 nautical miles.
Many interpret this as the authorities still playing a hazard with nature and the environment, but Stene pointed out in practice: The oil tankers normally go farther into the sea than the baseline.
On February 10, the 340-meter-long supertanker "Belokamenka" became the object of a towing exercise off the North Cape. At the Coastal Administration in Honningsvåg, it is stated that the exercise was performed satisfactorily. The tanker weighed 125 dwt. on this occasion. What would have happened in a storm if the tanker had been fully loaded with a weight of 000 dwt., Is a completely different matter.
The people of the coast will probably have to live in uncertainty for decades to come.
