Sea Technology

DEC 2017

The industry's recognized authority for design, engineering and application of equipment and services in the global ocean community

Issue link: http://sea-technology.epubxp.com/i/916143

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 47 of 52

www.sea-technology.com December 2017 / st 47 virtual buoys on vessel AIS screens when ice conditions do not allow the placement of traditional buoys; loca- tion of ports of refuge are identified; and towing packages and sea arrestors are preprepositioned along the coast to be deployed to a vessel in distress. There are currently prevention mea- sures and applications of marine safety technologies across Arctic nations. A reasonable goal would be taking ad- vantage of these advances and estab- lishing a shared system of data col- lection and distribution and to adopt uniform operating prevention mea- sures throughout the Arctic. The Alaska Prevention and Response system is a highly developed example, but the operating procedures of other nations should also be considered for identify- ing best prevention practices. Vessel tracking is achieved through the AIS transmitter and receiver that IMO requires all vessels more than 300 gross tons to carry. The display of the data on interactive GIS software over the Internet enables monitoring and management of marine traffic in a dy- namic, real-time manner. It can also be used to initiate and monitor a rescue operation. Establishing a vessel tracking and monitoring system throughout the Arctic is something that is technologi- cally possible, not cost prohibitive and could be implemented in two years. The preamble of the 2009 IMO Arctic guidelines states: "Poor weath- er conditions and the relative lack of good charts, communication systems and other navigational aids pose chal- lenges for mariners." Since 2009, there have been tremendous applied tech- nology advancements in the areas of AIS, communications systems, digital navigational aids, identification of pri- orities for oceanographic mapping and dynamic protection of nearshore ma- rine resources that should be incorpo- rated into a new set of Arctic operating guidelines. The establishment of universal stan- dards and prevention measures for ma- rine operations in the Arctic will help produce a stable market and risk man- agement environment for commercial shippers on the Northern Sea Route. ST the need to protect the fragile Arctic environment. The first step should be for the U.S. and Russia to agree to co- operate in identifying and implement- ing enhanced prevention measures for marine operations in the Arctic. Each nation's prevention measures should then be analyzed for effectiveness and possible alignment, and the results should be implemented either through bilateral agreements (similar to those pertaining to the St. Lawrence Seaway and Barents Sea) or through the IMO. On the U.S. side, due to the rela- tive lack of response capability and infrastructure in the Arctic, the U.S. Coast Guard has required vessels that have called on a U.S. port to adopt and adhere to enhanced prevention measures to reduce the risk of environ- mental damage from a vessel casualty. These measures are managed by two Alaskan nonprofits: the Alaska Marine Prevention and Response Network and the Marine Exchange of Alaska, which provides vessel tracking and monitor- ing services. The following measures are ex- amples that could be used as a model for international agreements on shared Arctic waters: vessels are required to enroll in a tracking system for compli- ance and emergency response; vessels are required to maintain a distance offshore from 50 to 75 mi. to allow more time for response in the event of loss of power, loss of steering or vessel hull damage; vessels may be required to utilize preferred seaways through island passes or to ensure adequate draft for safe passage, and noncompli- ant vessels are notified to correct their course; vessels are required to report loss of power or steering; active moni- toring detects vessels sailing below 2 kt., and the vessel is contacted to de- termine its safety status; potential res- cue vessels, including nongovernment vessels of opportunity, are tracked to determine their proximity to a vessel casualty and to monitor their response to an incident; two-way AIS communi- cations from land-based antennas are used to notify mariners of real-time lo- cal weather conditions, ice conditions, notices to mariners, critical habitat zones to be avoided, and to display Paul Fuhs is the for- mer mayor of Dutch Harbor, Alaska, for- mer owner of the company Aleutian Explosives and a commercial diver specializing in port construction, emergency response and the use of explosives underwater. He is cur- rently president of the Marine Exchange of Alaska, which provides vessel tracking and monitoring services for the coast of Alaska. His email is: paulfuhs@earthlink.net. T he Arctic is a fragile environment in which many local people rely on marine resources as a primary food source. Changing Arctic climate conditions are creating opportuni- ties for expanded shipping activities, which increases the chances of oil spills. But oil spill response resources are limited and operations are more difficult in Arctic conditions. Even under the best of circumstances with the best equipment, oil spill recovery operations recover a maximum of 10 percent. Therefore, enhanced preven- tion measures should be a high prior- ity. There are several examples of pre- vention measures in the Arctic, along with technological advances in vessel tracking and monitoring. International agreements should be reached for uni- versal implementation of prevention best practices throughout the Arctic, either through bilateral agreements or through the International Maritime Or- ganization (IMO) Polar Code. For example, the U.S. and Russia are both Arctic nations, and it is in their interest to pursue cooperation in the region; specifically, regulating shipping traffic. The presidents of both countries have publicly stated their intentions to work together to protect the Arctic, regardless of other disagree- ments. Although some U.S. politicians have questioned Russian intentions, there is no question that the protec- tion of the shared Arctic environment is above reproach. U.S.-Russian cooperation on Arctic shipping traffic regulation would com- bine two important needs: the need of the marine shipping industry and their insurers for universal rules and soap box Arctic Nations Should Cooperate on Regional Vessel Management—Paul Fuhs

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Sea Technology - DEC 2017