6 Risk of acute pollution and the preparedness and response system – status and trends

Acute pollution is defined as significant pollution that occurs suddenly and that is not permitted under the Pollution Control Act. Any activity that may result in acute pollution entails an inherent risk of damage to the environment and living marine resources. This chapter deals with the risk of acute pollution associated with the shipping industry, petroleum activities, and civilian and military activities that pose a risk of acute radioactive pollution, and Norway’s emergency preparedness and response system for acute pollution.

6.1 Environmental risk and accident risk

The term ‘accident risk’ refers to the risk that an accident resulting in acute pollution will occur, while ‘environmental risk’ describes the risk of environmental damage as a result of acute pollution.

The way accident risk and environmental risk are described differs from one sector to another. The shipping sector, petroleum industry and activities that may result in radioactive pollution take somewhat different approaches, related to factors including the different authorities involved, the legislation that applies to each sector, and the varying functions that risk descriptions play in risk management. The differences in approach also reflect developments in risk management and methodology based on experience gained from inspection and control activities and cooperation between authorities, and from accidents in the different sectors. For all sectors, it is important that accident risk and environmental risk are assessed together. Status and trends for accident risk and environmental risk for the three sectors are further described in Chapter 5.3–6.5.

Environmental risk can be reduced by taking steps to reduce the likelihood of acute pollution or to reduce the environmental consequences in the event of acute pollution. In general, preventing accidents involving acute pollution is essential to maintain a low level of environmental risk. Measures to prevent accidents are particularly important as a means of reducing environmental risk in and close to environmentally vulnerable areas. The risk of damage to vulnerable areas and populations of vulnerable species can also be reduced by avoiding high-risk activities away in such areas or at times of year when vulnerability is high.

If an accident involving acute pollution does occur, it may cause damage to organisms in the water column, on the seabed, at the sea surface (seabirds and marine mammals), or to organisms that live in coastal waters and the shore zone or marginal ice zone. An accident may also reduce the amenity value of an area and have negative impacts on recreational and commercial activities. Every spill is different, and the environmental consequences will depend on a range of factors, including the type of spill, when and where it happens, how the pollution spreads, which species and habitat types are to be found in the area affected by pollution and their vulnerability to the relevant type of pollution.

In the event of an accident, rapid and effective detection of acute pollution is of crucial importance for an early response that can stop the pollution at source. This is vital in limiting the quantities of pollutants released and the damage to the environment and marine resources. The level of environmental risk determines preparedness and response needs in different areas of Norway’s waters.

The assessment of environmental risk in this chapter focuses mainly on oil spills, since these involve the greatest potential for environmental consequences from acute pollution. Releases of natural gas would not have major impacts on the marine environment and are therefore not discussed further here.

The potential consequences of chemical spills vary, but these are often smaller spills from petroleum activities, and have only local effects. Chemicals carried as cargo on ships also pose an accident risk, particularly in the approaches to industrial areas where there are chemical plants. However, at present we have insufficient knowledge to assess environmental risk or vulnerability to chemical spills.

Sudden releases of significant quantities of solid waste such as plastics are also defined as acute pollution. Plastic pellets, or nurdles, are persistent microplastics that often contain hazardous substances. In February 2020, there was a major spill of plastic pellets in the North Sea during a storm. Damage to a container on a cargo vessel resulted in the loss of 13 tonnes of plastic pellets, which washed up on beaches in Scandinavia, including the shoreline of the Oslofjord in Norway.

An incident involving radioactive pollution is unlikely to have significant consequences for the marine environment. There could be some local pollution, but dilution in the water column would reduce levels of radioactivity considerably.

The development of new industries in Norway’s ocean areas, such as offshore aquaculture, offshore wind and seabed mineral extraction, may result in different types of acute pollution incidents in areas where there is currently little or no activity. As yet, we have no experience of such incidents and types of pollution, but they are generally likely to be linked to shipping serving the new industries. It will be important to build up knowledge on environmental vulnerability to the types of acute pollution that may occur.

6.2 Vulnerability to acute pollution

There are many areas in Norway’s waters where vulnerability to acute pollution is high, and particularly to oil spills. These are generally:

• areas that are important for seabirds (areas used for breeding and feeding, for swimming migration, or where there are large aggregations, especially of pelagic and coastal diving species);

• areas that are important for early life stages of fish (spawning products, eggs and larvae);

• areas where there are large aggregations of certain marine mammal species, particularly in the whelping and moulting seasons;

• coastal areas, particularly less exposed areas where oil that reaches the shore or sea ice may persist for a long time.

Since the occurrence and distribution of vulnerable species such as seabirds and marine mammals varies from one area to another and through the year, there will also be spatial and temporal variations in the vulnerability of different areas to acute pollution. Knowledge about important species and habitats and their vulnerability to acute pollution is essential for an understanding of potential environmental risk related to acute pollution incidents. Such knowledge is also important for evaluating how environmental risk varies from one area to another and through the year, so that measures can be targeted as needed. We therefore need adequate information about the distribution of vulnerable habitat types and species in Norway’s ocean areas, and about which life stages are particularly vulnerable to exposure to oil.

In connection with the review of the particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in Norwegian waters and identification of a new set of areas, updated assessments have been made of the vulnerability of a range of ecosystem components to various environmental pressures, including oil pollution. Vulnerability can be defined as a measure of how prone an area is to be negatively affected by human activity or changes in environmental conditions; conversely, its resilience is a measure of how well it can resist or recover from damage. Thus the vulnerability of an area is considered to be an intrinsic property of the species and habitats to be found there, regardless of whether or not specific environmental pressures are actually acting on them. Assessments of intrinsic vulnerability therefore do not take into account whether or not a specific activity is being carried out in an area. Since the previous scientific basis was published, knowledge about the vulnerability of various fish species to oil has been improved. The results have been used in simulations of oil spills and their effects on fish stocks. Work is also in progress to learn more about the vulnerability of seabird colonies to acute pollution.

6.3 Shipping

The environmental risk associated with acute pollution from shipping is calculated on the basis of the likelihood of accidents involving different spill volumes and the environmental consequences of a spill. The maritime safety level in Norwegian waters is high, and in recent years, maritime safety has been further improved through a number of preventive measures. Despite this, there is always a possibility of an accident involving acute pollution.

6.3.1 Relevant developments

There has been a slight overall increase in ship traffic, expressed as the distance sailed, in the period 2015–2021. However, this has had little effect on overall levels of spill risk and environmental risk. From 2015, the number of incidents where vessel casualties result in acute pollution has been fairly stable for the three management plan areas considered together. There has been some variation in total annual discharge volumes from vessel casualties resulting in acute pollution during the same period, but no clear trend.

Recently, international requirements to use fuels with a lower sulphur content have been introduced in order to reduce sulphur emissions. As a result, additives such as waxes must be used to lubricate ships’ engines. This means that low-sulphur fuels have a higher pour point (the temperature at which the oil solidifies as it cools), and therefore congeal more readily than traditional fuel types. This also makes it more difficult to recover oil from the sea using the current types of skimmers, and lumps of solidified fuel may be transported over long distances and break up in the shore zone when temperatures rise. Too little is known about the overall effects the new low-sulphur fuel types may have on environmental risk. In addition, little experience has been gained of acute pollution response operations involving a wide range of low-sulphur fuels on a cold sea surface. Norway is the lead country in an Arctic Council project on the fate and behaviour of new low-sulphur fuels in cold-water conditions, which is intended to fill gaps in our knowledge.

Other changes in the shipping sector that are affecting the level of environmental risk include a longer cruise traffic season. Moreover, climate change is resulting in greater environmental vulnerability and an increase in the number of red-listed species, thus altering the level of environmental risk. Any risk of acute pollution from offshore wind production and other new offshore industries is expected to be linked mainly to shipping to and from their facilities.

The volume of shipping in far northern waters has risen in recent years. According to figures registered by the Vardø Vessel Traffic Service Centre, ship traffic almost doubled from 2017 to 2019, but after this there was a small decrease in 2020 and 2021. The number of high-risk vessels and vessels carrying dangerous cargo registered in this period was also higher than previously. However, figures for this category show the same tendency as the overall figures, with a decrease in 2020 and 2021.

Norway maintains a good overview of all tankers sailing through its waters, and monitors all tankers and other high-risk traffic along the Norwegian coast and in the waters around Svalbard. No increase has been registered in tanker traffic sailing north-south and south-north along the Norwegian coast, but there has been a rise in the number of crude oil tankers sailing from Russia and out through the Baltic Sea, linked to the war in Ukraine and the sanctions imposed on Russia. Most of their route takes them through Danish and Swedish water, but any incidents involving these ships could also affect Norwegian waters and coastal areas in the Skagerrak and outer Oslofjord.

The Norwegian Coastal Administration is responsible for coordinating the preparedness and response system for acute pollution along the coast. International agreements ensure that the Coastal Administration will receive early warnings of any incidents in neighbouring countries that may affect Norway. In the event of acute pollution from such incidents, the response will be handled through the established governmental system, if necessary with international assistance.

Stricter rules for the types of fuel that are permitted in the waters around Svalbard are reducing risk levels and the potential for damage in areas where vulnerability to oil spills is high.

6.3.2 Maritime safety – measures to reduce the likelihood of vessel casualties

The purpose of maritime safety measures is to prevent injuries and the loss of life, environmental damage and material damage. Over the years, a range of measures has been implemented to reduce the likelihood of vessel casualties. Important examples include traffic separation schemes, including routeing systems approved by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the government emergency tugboat capability, navigation technology (the AIS system and satellite navigation), the quality-assured digital route service, vessel traffic services to monitor and regulate maritime traffic, regulatory measures for national and international shipping, port state control measures, improvements to fairways and pilot services.

Norway has established traffic separation schemes and recommended routes all along the mainland in its exclusive economic zone in order to divert high-risk traffic, including international transit traffic, further away from the coast. This gives the authorities more time to respond to incidents and emergencies. Keeping vessels further out from the coast will also help to reduce the consequences of any accidents involving oil spills. The routeing systems are mainly used by vessels of 5000 gross tonnage and above, nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying dangerous or polluting cargo. Routeing systems outside territorial waters must be approved by IMO, and Norway is obliged to ensure that fixed installations are not sited in conflict with IMO-approved routes.

The main purpose of the government emergency tugboat capability is to ensure safety and prevent or limit acute pollution at sea. The Coast Guard has the operational responsibility for this service, as agreed with the Norwegian Coastal Administration.

Vessel monitoring systems in Norwegian waters make it possible to provide assistance or take steps to limit damage at the right time. These systems also make it easier for the authorities to deal with accidents and run search and rescue operations. Further development of the infrastructure for receiving Automatic Identification System (AIS) signals from vessels has significantly enhanced vessel monitoring in recent years. A network of AIS base stations has been established along the entire mainland coast and for the most heavily trafficked waters off Svalbard. Satellites equipped with AIS receivers have also greatly enhanced monitoring in the open sea. The Vardø Vessel Traffic Service Centre monitors shipping in Norway’s exclusive economic zone along the mainland coast and in the waters around Svalbard, focusing particularly on tankers and other large vessels. The Vardø VTS Centre also monitors compliance with the rules for the traffic separation schemes, and issues navigational warnings.

Both the system of vessel inspections for Norwegian ships and the port state control (PSC) system for foreign vessels play a part in maintaining a high level of maritime safety in Norwegian waters. Risk-based inspections ensure that the main focus is on areas that give the greatest benefits for health, safety and the environment.

Measures to improve fairways reduce the likelihood of accidents, facilitate passage for shipping in narrow channels and reduce distances sailed. Aids to navigation improve maritime safety in coastal waters.

The main new development since 2019 is the introduction and publication of the quality-assured digital route service. The routes are quality assured for vessels up to 150 m in length and a maximum draught of 9 m, and can be downloaded directly to navigation systems on board from routeinfo.no. Digital routes are available for most ports from Halden to Kirkenes. The establishment of vessel traffic services for the waters between Florø and Måløy in 2021 is another important maritime safety measure introduced since the previous white paper on the ocean management plans.

Together, the measures that have been implemented provide a high level of maritime safety in Norway’s marine and coastal waters. Given measures that have been adopted internationally and further measures that are already being implemented at national level, a further decline in the risk of accidents is expected up to 2040.

Climate change is affecting weather conditions at sea and along the coast, and may in turn influence maritime safety and accident risk. This must be taken into account in continued efforts to maintain a high level of maritime safety and limit the risk of vessel casualties.

6.3.3 Acute pollution from shipping

The frequency of accidents is influenced by a number of factors, including the volume of traffic, the traffic situation, the technical standard and equipment of vessels, crew qualifications and preventive measures such as steps to secure cargo. Navigation is more challenging in Norwegian coastal waters than along the coast of most other countries. Grounding while under way is the dominant accident type along the Norwegian coast. In some cases, vessel casualties result in acute pollution, for examples oil spills (cargo or fuel), chemical spills, spills of products or plastic pellets, or releases of radioactive substances. Incidents where cargo is lost or damaged occur frequently, and in some cases they can result in acute pollution, such as releases of plastic pellets.

From 2015 to 2021, the number of incidents involving acute pollution as a result of vessel casualties was relatively stable for the three management plan areas considered together. There have been about 100 incidents a year, generally involving only small quantities of pollutants. The largest spill during this period resulted from the collision between the frigate NHoMS Helge Ingstad and the tanker SOLA TS in 2018. Substantial quantities of marine diesel and helicopter fuel leaked to the sea. However, environmental investigations carried out in May 2019 showed no major environmental consequences in the area around the wreck of the Helge Ingstad. To make it easier to describe developments in this field, linear trends over several years are used. For the period as a whole, there was a weakly rising trend in vessel casualties involving acute pollution, but the rise for each of the management plan areas was small, and the situation can be described as relatively stable. Thus, there has been little change in the number of incidents and the level of accident risk during the reporting period, and the accident risk is considered to be low.

Fuel spills

The likelihood of fuel spills varies through the year and between different areas of Norway’s marine and coastal waters, mainly linked to variations in traffic density. The likelihood of fuel spills is higher in the North Sea-Skagerrak area than in the other two management plan areas, and is highest in the Oslofjord and inner Skagerrak and off the coast of Telemark, and in Agder and Rogaland counties. The likelihood of spills from vessels of 5000 gross tonnage and above is also highest in the same areas. In the Norwegian Sea (off the coast of Møre og Romsdal, Trøndelag and Nordland), the likelihood of spills declines gradually from south to north, and this trend is also found for vessels of 5000 gross tonnage and above. In the Barents Sea–Lofoten area, the likelihood of spills is somewhat higher from the Lofoten Islands to northern Troms than for Nordland, but lower than for Nordland off the coast of Finnmark. The likelihood of spills is even lower in the water around Svalbard than off Finnmark.

Cargo spills

The likelihood of spills of oil carried as cargo is considerably lower than for fuel oil, and is highest in the North Sea–Skagerrak management plan area, particularly in the Oslofjord and inner Skagerrak and off the coast of Telemark, Agder and Rogaland counties. Oil is normally carried as cargo by three different vessel types: chemical, product and crude oil tankers. In the period 2015–2021, the likelihood of spill from crude oil and product tankers has been fairly stable for the area analysed as a whole.

Within the framework of IMO, Norway has proposed the introduction of stricter binding rules on the transport of plastic pellets by classifying them as a ‘harmful substance’ under Annex III of the MARPOL Convention. This and other possible solutions are now being considered by member states, and they are also working on recommendations on the carriage of plastic pellets that can be used as a temporary measure and can be quickly adopted by the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) once agreement is reached.

The use of chemicals is becoming more and more widespread in manufacturing and in other areas of society. Chemicals transported by sea may include biofuels to be mixed with other fuels and chemicals used in the petroleum sector or the aquaculture industry. Chemical tankers are being used to deliver cargo to a growing number of onshore facilities and terminals, which increases the risk of acute pollution.

6.3.4 The environmental risk associated with shipping in different areas

The maritime safety level in Norwegian waters is generally high, and there are relatively few spills with environmental consequences. However, the consequences of a major spill could be very serious for vulnerable species and habitats, and as a result the level of environmental risk is considered to be high in many areas.

The North Sea–Skagerrak area

The Oslofjord and inner Skagerrak: this area is heavily trafficked and the calculated frequency of exposure to oil is high. Combined with very high environmental vulnerability at certain times of year, this results in a high level of environmental risk in the area.

Agder and waters off the coast: the level of environmental risk varies between moderate and high. Both the calculated frequency of exposure to oil and vulnerability are high during parts of the year. Taking account of oil from vessel casualties in Swedish and Danish waters in the Kattegat and Skagerrak results in a slightly higher figure for the frequency of exposure to oil.

Rogaland: the level of environmental risk in much of this area is high or very high during parts of the year. Special care is therefore needed when deciding on the design and capabilities of the preparedness and response system for the area. However, preparedness and response resources are readily available along this part of the coast.

Vestland county (southern part): the risk level is very high in several parts of this area. There is high-risk traffic in the area, and evaluations of the preparedness and response system must take into account both accident risk and environmental risk.

Vestland county (northern part): there is high-risk vessel traffic in the southern part of this area, and environmental vulnerability is very high further north. Any oil drift from south to north would influence the level of environmental risk. As for the southern part of Vestland, the combination of accident and environmental risk is of crucial importance for decisions on the capabilities and siting of preparedness and response resources. Areas of special concern are around the Sula reef, coastal waters and the Møre banks.

Source: Norwegian Coastal Administration

The Norwegian Sea

Møre og Romsdal: the Møre banks and the coastal zone of the Norwegian Sea from 62 ^oN northwards to Runde island are the areas in Møre og Romsdal where environmental risk is highest. These waters include a number of protected areas that are important for seabirds. Marine mammals such as the grey seal, harbour porpoise, common seal and orca are also found in the area.

Trøndelag: the Froan archipelago, the Sula reef and the coastal zone of the Norwegian Sea are important for various species of corals, fish, seabirds and marine mammals, particularly in spring and summer.

Helgeland: this is the southern part of Nordland county, and a number of areas are particularly vulnerable to exposure to oil. The Vega Archipelago is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and its conservation value is particularly high. In the event of an oil spill in the area, there would be a very high likelihood of oil reaching the shore, and the logistics of an oil spill operation would be very complicated. These factors must be taken into account in analyses of the preparedness and response resources that are needed.

The Barents Sea–Lofoten area

Northern Nordland and southern Troms: a long stretch including a number of areas that are vulnerable at some times of year because of the rich bird life and spawning areas for fish.

Northern Troms and Finnmark is another large area including important spawning, nursery and wintering areas for many different fish species. This supports a rich bird life and many seabird colonies, and in some periods also many marine mammals. Ocean currents that carry drifting fish larvae northwards towards the Barents Sea explain why 90 % of Norway’s seabird colonies are located in the Lofoten Islands and further north.

Waters around Svalbard (including Bjørnøya), Jan Mayen: levels of environmental risk are estimated to be quite low because there is relatively little shipping and calculated accident frequency is low for much of the year. However, the environmental consequences of a spill would be very high at some times of year because of large concentrations of seabirds and marine mammals and high vulnerability to oil pollution. This area also includes a large proportion of the protected areas in Norway’s territorial waters.

Although levels of environmental risk for waters around Svalbard (Figure 6.2) are low on average, high values have been found for specific areas in certain months of the year, and the months when the risk level is highest vary from one part of the area to another.

Source: Norwegian Coastal Administration

In the waters around Svalbard, Bjørnøya and Jan Mayen, the potential environmental consequences are more important than risk values in the context of preparedness and response for acute pollution. This is also in line with political guidelines for the management of these areas.

A general prohibition on the use of heavy fuel oil in the territorial waters around Svalbard was introduced from 1 January 2024. This means that permitted fuels are specific light marine gas oils and new, greener fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and hydrogen. This will reduce the level of environmental risk in the territorial waters around Svalbard, which consist largely of protected areas where many species and habitats are vulnerable to oil pollution.

6.4 Petroleum activities

Acute pollution in connection with petroleum activities may be caused by events ranging from uncontrolled blowouts that can potentially release large volumes of oil to the sea, to minor spills of oil or chemicals. The likelihood of an accident that results in a major spill is low, but the environmental consequences could be very serious.

The risk of spills during petroleum activities is referred to as accident risk in this white paper. The risk of spills causing environmental damage is referred to as environmental risk. However, in contrast to the more traditional understanding of risk, the concept of risk used in the petroleum industry puts less emphasis on the likelihood of accidents, see Box 6.1. Health and safety and protection of the external environment are closely linked, and the Norwegian authorities cooperate to ensure an integrated approach. Accidents may have environmental consequences if they result in oil or chemical spills or emissions to air. In connection with integrated ocean management, the authorities consider it particularly important to ensure that stakeholders do not assess and manage accident risk and environmental risk separately. The current health, safety and working environment legislation also requires an integrated approach to assessments, and provides a framework for cooperation between the safety and environmental authorities so that they can meet their obligations together rather than separately.

The level of activity in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea has been consistently high since the previous white paper on the management plans was prepared. In the period 2017–2021, 52 exploration wells and 100 production wells were drilled in the Norwegian Sea, while the figures for the North Sea were 127 exploration wells and 777 production wells. In the same period, 23 new discoveries were made in the Norwegian Sea and 40 in the North Sea. Goliat and Snøhvit are still the only fields that are in production in the Barents Sea. The Johan Castberg field is under development, and drilling of production wells has started. The Wisting field is in the clarification phase. In the period 2017–2021, 31exploration wells and seven appraisal wells were drilled, and 13 discoveries were made. The level of risk and uncertainty is considerably higher for drilling of exploration wells than for production wells, among other things because conditions in the reservoir are known in advance when production wells are drilled.

6.4.1 Incidents and near misses

There have been both large and small spills on the Norwegian continental shelf since the first petroleum activities were initiated, but they have all occurred relatively far from land and under favourable weather conditions, and as a result of the response measures that were implemented, the pollution has not reached land or caused any known environmental damage. Stakeholders are obliged to take steps to prevent all types of incidents and near misses. The same barriers are used to prevent both minor and major spills. Learning from experience of minor spills is therefore important as a basis for improving barriers that are also intended to prevent major accidents.

Most incidents involving acute pollution on the Norwegian continental shelf are chemical spills. Chemicals are used because they have important functions and improve operational safety. Chemical spills accounted for about 80 % of the total number of incidents in the period 2005–2022. Spill quantities vary from year to year, and higher volumes are generally explained by individual more serious accidents. In recent years, high spill volumes have been registered in certain years both in the Norwegian Sea and in the North Sea. The highest figures for the Norwegian Sea were the result of chemical spills with volumes of 599 m³ (2015), 500 m³ (2018) and 202 m³ (2020).

The number of incidents involving crude oil spills on the Norwegian continental shelf shows a long-term declining trend for the whole period 2005–2022. However, the last part of the period, 2016–2022, does not show the same positive trend as the years 2002–2016 (Figure 6.3).

Source: Norwegian Ocean Industry Authority

There have been large variations in the annual discharge volumes of crude oil in the period 2002–2022. Most spills are in the size category 0–0.1 tonnes. However, the largest annual discharge volumes are the result of individual more serious incidents. The only incident involving a spill of more than 1000 tonnes (3596 tonnes) occurred in 2007, when a hose was severed during the transfer of oil to a tanker. In 2019, overpressurisation of a sludge cell on a fixed facility in the North Sea resulted in cracking of the cell dome, and 126 tonnes of oil leaked into the sea.

A near miss is an event that could have led to a spill under different circumstances, if several of the barriers designed to prevent spills had failed. Such events are analysed and followed up by the operators and the authorities to monitor trends in accident risk and to make improvements in preventive efforts and risk treatment. There was a downward trend in the number of near misses in the period 2005–2013, followed by a weak rise from 2013 to 2015. After 2015, the number of near misses has been relatively stable, but there has not been a downward trend either in the number of near misses or in the size of the potential spills from these events (Figure 6.4).

Source: Norwegian Ocean Industry Authority

6.4.2 Accident risk

There is some risk of spills of crude oil or chemicals during any oil production or drilling in oil-bearing formations. It is therefore vital that the industry maintains high safety standards and continues its efforts to reduce the risk of such events. The most important measures for reducing environmental risk are the same as those for preventing accidents.

Accident risk is dynamic, and continuous action by both the companies and the authorities is necessary to maintain a consistently low level of risk. All companies must therefore to seek to reduce accident risk when planning, carrying out, monitoring, adjusting and further developing their own petroleum activities. They must also follow this up and learn from incidents and accidents and their causes, and if necessary adjust their routines.

The authorities play a part in risk reduction through the single regulatory framework that has been established for health, safety and the environment, and which makes the petroleum companies responsible for reducing accident risk. This regulatory framework sets ambitious requirements for risk reduction regardless of geographical area, location and type of field development. The authorities also play a part through inspection and enforcement activities to ensure that companies are complying with the rules, by investigating serious accidents and monitoring accident and incident trends, through their influence on research and development, and through cooperation between the social partners and public authorities. Regulatory and supervisory activities by the authorities are intended to be a supplement to and not a replacement for accident prevention by the companies.

One important focus area that has been identified since the Forum for Integrated Ocean Management published its 2019 risk report is learning and improvement processes in response to incidents and accidents. It is also important to learn from major accidents in other parts of the world in order to avoid making the same mistakes in the Norwegian petroleum industry. The aim is to encourage the companies to improve the way they evaluate environmental risk in conjunction with accident risk and to give higher priority to accident prevention. Since 2019, cooperation between the Norwegian Ocean Industry Authority and the Norwegian Environment Agency has been further developed to improve compliance with requirements in the current legislation.

6.4.3 Environmental risk

There is some environmental risk associated with all petroleum activities on the Norwegian continental shelf. Under the health, safety and working environment legislation, environmental damage must be limited or prevented as far as possible and the risk level minimised. It is also considered very important to identify the ecosystem components that are most vulnerable to serious damage in the event of an oil spill, so that risk reduction measures can be targeted as necessary, and risk can be limited for example through a framework for petroleum activities in specific geographical areas.

According to the historical data, the likelihood of major spills is low. However, the authorities take into account the potential for large-scale events to have serious environmental consequences, particularly if they affect the most valuable areas that are also highly vulnerable to oil. Activities generally have a potential for more serious consequences if they may affect areas where there is a high concentration of vulnerable species. Knowledge about the distribution of habitats and species in Norwegian waters, and about the habitats, species and life stages that are most vulnerable to exposure to oil is therefore of crucial importance.

Restrictions on when drilling is permitted and where petroleum activities may be carried out can substantially reduce the environmental risk associated with exploration and other drilling. By the time production drilling starts, there is much more information about reservoir conditions and types of oil, and the likelihood of a blowout is considerably lower than during exploration drilling. However, the level of risk will depend on the discharge potential and the distance to vulnerable species and areas during production and production drilling as well, and therefore on where companies are allowed to start up petroleum activities.

Norway has developed comprehensive legislation on health, safety and the environment, which requires companies to meet strict safety and governance standards. The legislation is designed in such a way that the requirements become stricter in areas where conditions make this necessary. All petroleum-related activities, including exploration, field development, operation and field closure, require consent or permits from the authorities.

There are many important and valuable species and habitats in Norway’s ocean areas that show high intrinsic vulnerability to oil pollution. Carrying out petroleum activities in such areas requires both industry stakeholders and authorities to maintain a high level of awareness and show special care, so that the goal of maintaining a low level of environmental risk can be achieved. The ocean management plans include a framework for petroleum activities in different geographical areas, which helps to protect selected species, habitats and areas. For example, there are areas where no petroleum activities may be initiated, and others where there are restrictions on when drilling is permitted. Since the framework was last updated in the previous ocean management plans, new and improved knowledge about various species and habitats and their vulnerability to oil has been obtained, which can be used as a basis for assessing whether the framework for petroleum activities needs to be adjusted.

Both drilling and other petroleum activities take place in areas where an incident could have serious consequences. Although the likelihood of a serious incident is very low, it is therefore important to maintain the focus on risk reduction and continued work on preventive measures to reduce the environmental risk to the most valuable species and habitats in Norway’s waters.

In general, seabirds are considered to be the ecosystem component for which environmental risk is highest in the event of acute oil pollution from petroleum activities. This applies both to the breeding colonies along the coast and to birds on the open sea. Many seabird populations are suffering a prolonged decline, probably mainly as a result of climate change and food shortages. This situation makes populations more vulnerable to acute oil pollution. Other ecosystem components that are exposed to environmental risk are species in the water column, marine mammals, habitat types that are vulnerable to oil, the marginal ice zone, and coastal and littoral areas. The text below gives an overview of important factors relating to environmental risk in different geographical areas.

Source: Norwegian Environment Agency/Norwegian Offshore Directorate/Marine spatial management tool

The Barents Sea

The likelihood of serious accidents is considered to be low, but the potential consequences for vulnerable areas are large, because of the presence of important species and habitats in large areas in the Barents Sea, resulting in high vulnerability to oil pollution throughout the year (see Chapter 4.1.2). Since the previous white paper on the marine management plans was published, the environmental authorities have focused particularly on the following areas, species and habitats and times of year when regulating petroleum activities with a view to reducing the level of environmental risk:

• the large seabird breeding colonies along the coast and on Bjørnøya in spring and summer, and nearby feeding areas, up to 100 km out to sea from the breeding colonies;

• the areas used by common guillemots during swimming migration, and other coastal waters after the breeding season, and the wintering areas they use in the eastern part of the Barents Sea;

• the marginal ice zone;

• coastal and littoral areas (all year round);

• the Tromsøflaket bank area, where there are spawning products in the water column in spring and summer, sponge aggregations on the seabed, and large numbers of seabirds at certain times of year.

Seabirds are still the ecosystem component for which environmental risk related to oil spills from petroleum activities in the Barents Sea is highest, and also the ecosystem component that has been most intensively studied since the previous white paper on the ocean management plans was published. Results from SEATRACK have shown that both coastal waters and large areas of the open sea are important for seabirds at various times of year.

The North Sea, Norwegian Sea and Skagerrak

There is petroleum activity both near the coast and further out to sea. As was the case when the previous white paper on the management plans was published, the level of environmental risk associated with most drilling and other field activity in the North Sea, Norwegian Sea and Skagerrak is within the range expected for such activities in these areas. The likelihood of serious accidents is considered to be low, and the potential for environmental consequences in the most vulnerable areas is limited for many petroleum operations. In the Norwegian Sea, activities in certain areas could have serious consequences. For example, some wells are near the coast, where there is a risk that a large oil slick could make landfall after an accident and the level of environmental risk to seabirds is high.

During this planning period, the environmental authorities have been focusing particularly on certain areas, species and habitats that are particularly important and very vulnerable to oil pollution in connection with regulation of activities in the Norwegian Sea (see Chapter 4.1.3) and the North Sea–Skagerrak area (see Chapter 4.1.4). These are as follows:

• the seabird colonies along the coast and nearby feeding areas;

• the complex and valuable coastal waters from Smøla to Hitra, Frøya, Froan and off the Helgeland coast (southern part of Nordland county);

• the valuable areas around Røst and the Lofoten and Vesterålen islands;

• spawning areas for the major fish stocks on the Møre banks, Sklinna bank and Halten bank;

• the Sula reef area;

• the Træna reef area;

• sandeel habitat in the North Sea.

in the North Sea, important sandeel populations have been the focus of a great deal of attention. It is difficult to assess the level of environmental risk to sandeels because too little is known about their vulnerability to crude oil. Research on this topic has therefore been initiated with funding from the petroleum industry.

6.5 Activities involving nuclear and radioactive material

6.5.1 Accident risk

The volume of nuclear-powered shipping along the Norwegian coast is rising, and an accident involving a vessel of this type could result in releases of radioactivity that affect Norway. There are two ports in Norway that have regular calls by nuclear-powered submarines, one near Bergen and one near Tromsø.

Norwegian waters could also be affected by releases as a result of accidents at nuclear facilities on land. European nuclear power plants are ageing, and there is a growing risk of serious accidents. The likelihood of terrorist attacks on such facilities has also increased.

In the event of either a vessel casualty or an accident at an onshore facility, the consequences for marine and coastal waters would depend on various factors, including the location of the accident, the composition and size of any radioactive releases, and weather conditions.

6.5.2 Environmental risk

Many of the factors that affect the vulnerability of the environment to radioactive pollution are the same as for other types of pollution. Where, when and how radioactive pollution spreads will influence which species are affected.

In the event of an incident involving radioactive pollution, the likelihood of significant consequences for the marine environment would be low. Dilution in the water column would reduce levels of radioactivity considerably, and it is unlikely that there would be major changes in levels of radioactivity in the sea. There could be some local pollution, depending on the nature of the accident. In the past, accidents have led to questions about levels of radioactive pollution in fish for export. It is therefore important to maintain monitoring programmes for radioactive substances in the marine environment and in seafood, so that there is good documentation of background levels before an accident.

6.6 The preparedness and response system for acute pollution

6.6.1 Organisation and responsibilities

The Pollution Control Act distinguishes between private, municipal and governmental levels of the preparedness and response system for acute pollution. A basic principle of the Act is the polluter pays principle. In this context, it means that anyone who is engaged in any activity that may result in acute pollution must ensure that the necessary preparedness and response system is in place to prevent, detect, stop, remove and limit the impacts of pollution. Shipping is excepted from the duty to maintain its own preparedness and response system for acute pollution. At governmental level, the Norwegian Coastal Administration has therefore established a risk-based preparedness and response system for dealing with acute pollution.

The Norwegian Coastal Administration, under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, is responsible for government-level preparedness and response for acute pollution. To ensure closer coordination of municipal and governmental levels of the system, supervisory responsibility for municipal-level preparedness and response was transferred from the Norwegian Environment Agency to the Coastal Administration from 1 January 2022. The Coastal Administration is also responsible for coordinating all three levels of preparedness and response for acute pollution – private, municipal and governmental – in one national system. In addition, the Coastal Administration is the supervisory agency for all acute pollution incidents. A municipality where there is a pollution incident has an obligation to take action if those responsible for the pollution are unable to deal with it. Each municipality belongs to one of the intermunicipal acute pollution control committees, which organise cooperation on resources and share information on the response to acute pollution. The Norwegian Ocean Industry Authority, under the Ministry of Energy, has the supervisory responsibility for safety, the working environment, emergency preparedness and security in the petroleum industry and other ocean industries. Its responsibilities include the operators’ efforts to deal with any releases of pollution at source.

The petroleum sector organises its own private-sector preparedness and response system for acute oil pollution through the operators and the Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies (NOFO). The Norwegian Environment Agency, under the Ministry of Climate and Environment, is responsible for setting requirements for this system and supervising compliance with them. In the event of a major incident, additional assistance may be brought in through the voluntary sector, the Norwegian Civil Defence and international agreements on mutual assistance.

6.6.2 Governmental preparedness and response system for acute pollution

Governmental preparedness and response capabilities are dimensioned on the basis of knowledge about the environmental risk associated with oil spills from shipping in Norwegian waters.

The Norwegian Coastal Administration’s environmental risk and preparedness and response analyses from 2022 are used to optimise the design of the governmental preparedness and response system. The reports show that the ocean-going resources available for dealing with incidents within the recommended response time are inadequate in a number of areas where the level of environmental risk is high. The Coastal Administration has recommended action that should be taken on the basis of its reports. The Government will give priority to the measures discussed in the 2022 analyses, so that the governmental preparedness and response system for acute pollution is developed in line with changes in environmental risk.

Textbox 6.3 The preparedness and response system for acute pollution

The governmental preparedness and response system for acute pollution consists of the following elements:

• Round-the-clock response system under the Norwegian Coastal Administration

• 15 oil spill response depots and response teams (total personnel 170)

• 39 vessels available for coastal response operations, attached to the depots

• 29 intermunicipal acute pollution control committees that have governmental oil response equipment

• 14 Coast Guard vessels, including six that provide the government emergency tugboat capability

• 1 surveillance aircraft

• 5 drones (deployed to and operated by the Coast Guard)

• 5 multi-purpose vessels owned by the Coastal Administration, with inspection teams

• Agreements with two fire services for dealing with chemical spills at sea (RITS Kjem)

• Rapid-response resources at 17 locations (provided by the company Buksèr og berging and the Norwegian Sea Rescue Society)

Photo: Lill Haugen, Norwegian Coastal Administration

6.6.3 The petroleum industry’s preparedness and response system

Dimensioning preparedness and response capabilities

Every operator in the petroleum sector on the Norwegian continental shelf is responsible for establishing a preparedness and response system to prevent, detect, stop, remove and limit the impacts of acute oil pollution from its own activities. The capabilities of the system must be based on the activities the operator plans to carry out on each oil or gas field, and must be sufficient to deal with the whole range of possible incidents. The resources needed to deal with minor spills are very different from those needed in the event of a major accident such as a blowout. If no drilling is being carried out, there is less need for resources than in periods when well drilling or other high-risk operations are in progress. The level of activity and the distance to emergency response resources vary from one area to another. In areas where the activity level is high, the operators and NOFO have built up the emergency preparedness and response system to provide more shared resources, for example through agreements for specific areas.

Rapid deployment and arrival at a spill site is one of the most important damage limitation factors. In the Barents Sea, response teams may need to travel long distances, and the availability of resources and personnel is more limited than in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea. These factors are taken into account in designing the preparedness and response system, which is adjusted to the activities in progress at any time and the potential hazards and accident types that have been identified. The bulk of preparedness and response resources are in the North Sea and Norwegian Sea, which is only natural since this is where there is most petroleum activity.

Methods and equipment for dealing with oil in icy waters are unchanged since the previous update of the ocean management plans.

Source: NOFO

Current status

Preparedness and response capabilities in the petroleum industry’s system are dimensioned in relation to activity levels and the hazards and accident types that have been identified. Resources are deployed where there is most activity. It is natural that a larger proportion of emergency response resources is located in Norway’s more southerly waters, since there is substantially more petroleum activity in the North Sea and Norwegian Sea.

The resources available are much the same as they were when the previous white paper on the ocean management plans was published. In 2022, NOFO had 30 offshore oil recovery systems, 26 of which were conventional systems operated by two vessels, with 400 m of boom systems and skimmers. The remaining four are high-speed systems including booms and skimmers that only require one vessel for their operation.

To provide preparedness and response capability for oil in coastal waters, NOFO has agreements on the use of about 65 vessels, about half of which are attached to the Goliat field in the Barents Sea. These are mainly fishing vessels, workboats for the aquaculture industry and vessels from the oil and gas terminals. NOFO has 29 high-speed oil recovery systems for coastal waters, consisting of booms and various types of skimmers and requiring only vessel for their operation.

NOFO also has access to drones that can be used to detect and map oil spills on the open sea and in coastal waters. Other activities include funding the establishment of HF radar chains off Western Norway and Finnmark to measure surface water currents, and further developing the use of satellite data to provide more reliable detection of oil on the sea and measurements of its thickness. Together with oil drift modelling, all these activities improve the efficiency of oil spill operations when accidents happen.

In recent years, NOFO has ensured that more people are available to command and carry out operations to clean up beached oil. NOFO runs well over 250 drills every year involving oil spill response vessels, tugboats and equipment, with subsequent verification of vessels and equipment. Exercises are also carried out involving oil companies and partners from the governmental, municipal and private sectors.

Further development

The petroleum industry is running several projects with the aim of improving oil spill preparedness and response. Both chemical and mechanical subsea oil dispersal are being further developed. Work is also in progress on new methods such as burning off oil on water, and trials have been run with different types of booms that are designed to withstand this. However, burning is not an acceptable solution if it is possible to collect the oil using booms and remove it from the sea surface. Technology is developed by the petroleum industry as it is needed. This means that preparedness and response for icy waters is not a priority unless it is needed. There is most sea ice in the northern Barents Sea, which is not open for the petroleum industry.

The Barents Sea Operation Cooperation (BaSOP) is a cooperation forum for operators in the region. BaSOP considers it appropriate to build up preparedness and response capacity, coordinate plans and consider preparedness and solutions for the southwestern part of the Barents Sea as an integrated whole. BaSOP has recommended working towards the formal establishment of an area-wide emergency preparedness system for the southwest Barents Sea. This will improve coordination and make it easier to share resources.

6.6.4 The overall national preparedness and response system for acute oil pollution

The overall national preparedness and response system consists of three parts: governmental, municipal, and the petroleum industry’s own preparedness and response system. There is close operational cooperation between the different parties involved.

The Norwegian Coastal Administration’s environmental risk and preparedness and response analyses are used as a basis for dimensioning the capabilities of the governmental preparedness and response system for acute pollution. The analyses point out that the ocean-going resources available for dealing with incidents are below the recommended levels in a number of areas where the level of environmental risk is high. The Government will give priority to the measures discussed in the 2022 analyses, so that the governmental preparedness and response system for acute pollution is developed in line with changes in environmental risk.

The petroleum industry has concluded that further development of oil and gas fields in the Barents Sea would require an increase in the resources available for oil spill preparedness and response. The industry’s own analyses show that the distances involved and weather conditions in Barents Sea would make year-round operations and emergency preparedness a challenging prospect, and that oil spill preparedness and response in the winter months would be particularly difficult. The petroleum industry’s ocean-going preparedness capacity in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea has generally been considered to be better than in the Barents Sea. This is because the largest share of resources is attached to fields and bases further south. The petroleum industry is required to maintain preparedness and response capabilities that are adequate for the level of activity at any given time, so that it is possible to deal with any incidents at all producing fields and planned field developments.

It is uncertain whether the preparedness and response system has the capability to deal adequately with oil in icy water. The Norwegian Coastal Administration has boosted the capacity of the system with robust oil booms for use in icy water and skimmers that function better in icy water, but their effectiveness is uncertain. The operators have equipment that has been tested and can be used in areas with a certain amount of ice, but in this case too, the effectiveness of the equipment is uncertain. Two points from the framework for petroleum activities must be taken into account when assessing whether there are adequate preparedness and response capabilities for icy water. These are the clear specification of where new petroleum activities can be initiated in relation to the marginal ice zone, and the condition that exploration drilling in oil-bearing formations is not to be permitted in areas less than 50 km from observed sea ice.

According to updated information, emergency preparedness and response capabilities for oil pollution in coastal waters and the shoreline are not adequate. In the event of a shipping casualty near the coast, a blowout near the coast or a major blowout, it would be almost impossible to prevent oil from making landfall. Once oil has reached land, factors such as sparsely populated areas, limited infrastructure, low temperatures, darkness and ice could make oil recovery operations extremely challenging.

The overall nationwide national preparedness and response system puts Norway in a good position to deal with the acute phase of most expected types of incidents involving oil spills. However, in the event of a major accident or a protracted incident, maintaining the response would become challenging, whether on the open sea, in coastal waters or along the shoreline. This applies particularly to major blowouts related to petroleum activities. In the case of shipping casualties, the ability to maintain a lengthy response is likely to be most problematic during the beach clean-up phase of an operation. However, there is considerable uncertainty regarding this assessment. Existing agreements with private, voluntary and international organisations would make more resources available, but the extent of the extra resources available for a lengthy response is uncertain.

Since the previous white paper on the marine management plans was published, there has been more focus on problems relating to the recovery of waxy oils, both because the shipping industry is using greater volumes of waxy fuel oils and because several oil fields contain waxy oils that have a long lifetime on the sea surface.

Preparedness and response capabilities for oil pollution are dimensioned on the basis of analyses of needs and the technology available. Nevertheless, weather conditions during a spill may reduce the effectiveness of the emergency response or even make an effective response impossible, or a spill may affect areas that are difficult to reach with effective response measures. In such cases, the preparedness and response system will have little effect on the consequences of acute pollution.

6.7 The preparedness and response system for nuclear accidents and acute radioactive pollution

Norway’s nuclear emergency preparedness system is designed to be able to deal with any incident involving acute radioactive pollution. This includes releases both in connection with shipping casualties and from incidents at nuclear facilities on land.

The Crisis Committee for Nuclear Preparedness is responsible for and has the authority to implement measures to reduce the consequences of a nuclear accident. The Government has used six scenarios for different types of incidents as a basis for setting priorities and planning the best possible nuclear preparedness scenario for Norway. A seventh scenario describing the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons is being prepared.

In spring 2023, an exercise called Arctic REIHN (Arctic Radiation Exercise in High North) was carried out. Its purpose was to test preparedness and the international response in the event of a nuclear or radiological accident on a nuclear-powered vessel in Arctic waters.