in open waters. This is reasonable. Territorial waters are closer to the coast and there will be less time available for evaluating the development of an accident before measures should be taken. At the same time it is a higher probability for the oil to pollute the shore and for damage to occur.
Discussion
Motora: I understand that, in Norway, oil production and / or oil tanker operators may present grave and imminent danger. Therefore, they will have to place a contract with, for example, NOFO. What I wanted to know is whether this kind of contract is also mandatory for foreign tanker operators navigating within your territorial waters.
Schive: It's not an obligation. We don't have this kind of system for the time being in Norway. This may be considered as a weak point because from the governmental point of view and because of the costs related to maintaining a contingency system on the state level, it would have been preferable to have somebody to take care of the costs also when there are no accidents. But in the case of an oil spill or danger of an oil spill from a tanker, it will be the state level of the response contingency system that will respond to the accident.
Mutoh: Among the photographs you showed, you showed an oil boom being effective in currents of 1.5 kt. Is that true? Is it really effective under a 1.5 kt current?
Schive: This is the requirement for the authorities, and certainly the requirement is based on what we consider to be possible. I think this will be presented in more detail by Mr. Rφdal, who is in fact responsible for meeting those requirements.
Mearns: How is the word “pollution” defined in Norway, or is there an agreed definition? Does the presence of a material in the ocean constitute pollution, or is there a higher level definition than that?
Schive: It will be at a higher level, and this is defined in the Pollution Control Act. I cannot by heart say what that definition is, but it is at a higher level than only contamination.
