In 2011, the Arctic Council, charged with promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction between the eight Arctic states, set up a task force to develop an international instrument to combat oil pollution. Efforts to reach existing mutual and multinational response agreements, which have been extended to mutual assistance and cooperation, were completed in early 2013. At the same time, the EPP Working Group, one of six such groups working within the framework of the Arctic Council, was tasked with coordinating and facilitating non-binding operational direction as an annex to the agreement. The greatest risk to the Arctic marine environment is probably due to a possible large-scale oil spill,1) O`Rourke R (2014), Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, 30; AMAP (2007), Arctic Oil and Gas 2007, p. 24-25, which typically occurs either by an oil spill or by loss of well control, when „the training pressure exceeds the pressure exerted by the drilling column of the drilling liquid.2) Speight JG (2015) Handbook of Oil and Gas Operations. Waltham/Oxford: Elsevier, p. 402 While in the event of a boat accident, the maximum amount of oil that could escape is easily known, for drilling products, oil could flow into the ocean for months until the well is capped. A blowout can be caused by a high-pressure oil pocket, human error, technical failure or a combination of all the others mentioned above.3) Speight JG (2015) Oil and Gas Operations Manual.
Waltham/Oxford: Elsevier, p. 275 Since its inception, the Arctic Council has been firmly committed to the prevention and control of oil pollution. In terms of scope, its results are broader than those of the treaties. Unlike treaties, they deal with measures to prevent oil pollution, controllable measures and Arctic responses. These are positive considerations, but they come with some compromises. To a large extent, the provisions of non-binding documents are not formulated as international legislation. Instead of imposing obligations directly on Arctic states, the Council`s documents generally establish a review of best practices and make recommendations to the relevant regulators, industry and other relevant stakeholders. One of the main benefits of the Arctic Council`s results in preventing and responding to oil spills is the way in which the non-state actors involved are involved: national and regional authorities and industry actors. (a) a minimum of prefabricated equipment to combat oil pollution, corresponding to the risk of pollution, and programmes for the use of such equipment; For more information, please contact:Patti Bruns, Executive Secretary of EPPRpatti@arctic-council.org-47 77 75 01 55 This opportunity to demonstrate leadership and cooperation in this time of change in the Arctic has not only resulted in an agreement, but has also resulted in an operational commitment to improve the collective oil spill capacity in this important part of the world. Media availability with EPPR President Jens Peter Holst-Andersen will take place in Oulu, Finland, on Wednesday, March 7, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. local time after the TTX. Members of the media are cordially invited to participate virtually (phone or computer); For call information, please email firstname.lastname@example.org. At some point in the response, a national restriction or identification of assistance or advice requirements due to circumstances may be recognized.
Although this can happen at any time during an incident, it was presented here in the early stages of a response. That is the fundamental objective of the agreement, Article 1. The objective of this activity is to determine whether support beyond internal capacity is needed.