2Large Claim Trends

Let's look at what kinds of large claims are common, for ocean-going vessels and for coastal vessels.

Ocean-goingvessels

There were 1,208 large ocean-going vessel accidents during the study period,and Graphs 9 and 10 show how many of each category of accident occurred, as
well as the amounts of insurance money for each accident category.

There were 590 crew claims, accounting for almost half of all incidents. This was followed by cargo damage (258incidents) and damage to Harbor facilities and fishing facilities (163 incidents). The number of collisions, oil spills,
groundings, fires, and ship sinking incidents were all far lower than the number of accidents of the types describedabove. However, in terms of insurance money, incidents of damage to Harbor facilities and fishing facilities came infirst, at $221,558 thousand followed by ship sinking incidents ($143,564 thousand), grounding incidents ($142,019
thousand), and crew claims ($126,752 thousand).

Number of Large Ocean-Going Vessel Claims by Accident Category
600

Total： 1,208

500
400
300
200
100

[Graph 9. Number of Large Ocean-Going Vessel Accidents by Risk Category]－ 13 －Other

Oil Spills

Damage to Harbour
Facilities andFishing Nets

Sinkings

Fires

Groundings

Collisions

Cargo Damages

Crew

0

(Unit: 1Claim)

Insurance Money for Large Ocean-Going Vessel Accidents by Accident Category
Total: $869,339 thou.

250,000

221,558

200,000
150,000

143,564

142,019

126,752
107,733
84,962100,000
50,00012,5897,898

22,264Other

Oil Spills

Damage to Harbour
Facilities andFishing Nets

Sinkings

Fires

Groundings

Collisions

Cargo Damages

Crew

0

(Unit： $1,000）[Graph 10. Insurance Money for Large Ocean-Going Vessel Accidents by Accident Category]

Graph 11 shows the ratios of large ocean-going vessel accidents and insurance money by accident category. Crew
claims accounted for 49% of all incidents, but crew claim insurance money accounted for 15%. This shows that
although the number of incidents is high, the insurance money per incident is relatively low. On the other hand,groundings and sinking incidents account for 2% and 1% of all incidents, respectively, but they account for 16% and
17% of all insurance money, showing that the insurance money per incident is extremely high. Therefore, reducing thenumber of crew claims, which are extremely numerous, and preventing groundings and sinking incidents, which havehigh per-accident insurance money, are future issues which must be tackled to improve insurance results.
Damages to Harbor facilities and fishing facilities account for 13% of all incidents and 25% of all insurance money. This
makes it the next most common accident type after crew claims and cargo damage. This, combined with the fact that
this accident type accounts for the highest share of insurance money, indicates that accident countermeasures are needed.
Ratios of Number of Accidents and Insurance Moneyfor Large Ocean-Going Vessel Claims by Accident Category

No. of

4
49%
9%

1%
2%
21%

1%

6%

2%

13%
3%

5%

Accidents

Insurance

15%
5%

Money
0%

[Graph 11.

10%
0%

10%

20%

12%
2%

30%

16%
6%

40%

17
17%
7%
1%

50%

60%

2
25%
5%

3%
3%

1%
70%

80%

Crew

Cargo Damages

Collisions

Groundings

Sinkings

Damage to Harbour Facilities
and Fishing Nets

Oil Spills

Other

90%

100%

Fires
(Unit： ％）Ratios of Number of Accidents and Insurance Money for Large Ocean-Going Vessel
Accidents by Risk Category]－ 15 －

There were 243 large coastal vessel accidents during the study period. Graphs 12 and13, like those for ocean-going vessels, show how many of each category of accident
occurred, as well as the amounts of insurance money for each accident category.

Coastalvessels

There were 105 incidents of damage to Harbor facilities and fishing facilities,
accounting for almost half of all incidents, followed by 82 crew claims. The number of incidents other than damage
to Harbor facilities and fishing facilities and crew claims was far smaller than the number of incidents in these twocategories, numbering less than 20 each. The amount of insurance money was highest for damage to Harbor facilities
and fishing facilities by an overwhelming margin, at ¥5,588 million. This was followed by groundings and collisions,which, though few in number, had insurance money of ¥3,375 million and ¥2,013 million, respectively. ¥2,263 million were also paid out for crew claims.

Number of Large Coastal Vessel Accidents by Risk Category
120
100
80

Total： 243

105
82

60
40
18

20

Other

Sinkings

Oil Spills

1
Damage to Harbour
Facilities andFishing Nets

0
Fires

Groundings

Collisions

Cargo Damages

Crew

0

14

13

7

3

(Unit： 1 claim)[Graph 12. Number of Large Coastal Vessel Accidents by Risk Category]Insurance Money for Large Coastal Vessel Accidents by Risk Category
6,000

5,588

5,000
4,000
3,000

3,375
2,263

2,013

2,000

449

392
Other

Damage to Harbour
Facilities andFishing Nets

131
Sinkings

Groundings

Collisions

Cargo Damages

Crew

0
Fires

152

Oil Spills

1000
0Total：¥14,363 million(Unit: Million yen)

[Graph 13. Insurance Money for Large Coastal Vessel Accidents by Risk Category]－ 17 －

Graph 14 shows the ratios of large coastal vessel accidents and insurance money by accident category. Incidents ofdamage to Harbor facilities and fishing facilities account for 43% of large coastal vessel accidents and 39% of insurance money, making it the accident category to which the greatest amount of attention needs to be paid. The insurancemoney for sinking was made for one case alone, amounting to ¥131 million.
On the other hand, collisions and groundings account for relatively small number of 8% and 3% of all incidents,
respectively, but they account for 14% and 23% of all insurance money, an extremely high per-incident insurancemoney. Therefore, reducing the number of incidents of damage to Harbor facilities and fishing facilities, which are
extremely numerous and involve large insurance money, and preventing collisions and groundings, which have highper-accident insurance money, are future issues which must be tackled to improve insurance results for coastal vessels.
Crew claims accounted for 34% of all incidents, but crew claim insurance money accounted for only 16%. Comparedto the ratio of accidents, the insurance pay-out ratio is low, but this category also requires close attention. One of
the reasons that the insurance money ratio is lower compared to ocean-going vessels is that Japanese crew members
are enrolled in seamen's insurance, and the range of incidents to which P&I compensation applies is limited (death
benefits, residual disability benefits, etc.).
Also, the ratio of cargo damage incidents was much lower for coastal vessels than for ocean-going vessels. This isdue to the Japanese domestic sea transport business practice of handling cargo damages using cargo insurance evenwhen the vessel owner is at fault, so there were few claims directed at vessel owners. Therefore, since basic coastal
vessel P&I insurance does not cover cargo damage when the vessel owner is at fault, we handled almost no accidentsof this type. However, in recent years it has become more common for cargo owners and their cargo insurers to makeclaims against vessel owners when cargo damage occurs, so separate cargo damage insurance is being provided by us
to extend coverage to cargo damage which occurs when the vessel owner is at fault. Please contact our Underwriting
Department for more details.
Ratios of Number of Accidents and Insurance Moneyfor Large Coastal Vessel Accidents by Accident Category1%
No. of34
4%
34%

Accidents

Insurance
Money[Graph 14.

14%
4%

20%

23%
23%

30%

5%

43%
43%

40%

39%
9%

1%

1%
10%

5%

1%

8%

16%
6%

0%

3%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Crew

Cargo Damages

Collisions

Groundings

Sinkings

Damage to Harbour Facilities
and Fishing Nets

Oil Spills

Other

3%
3%

90%

(Unit: %)Ratios of Number of Accidents and Insurance Money for Large Coastal Vessel
Accidents by Risk Category]－ 19 －

100%

For both ocean-going and coastal vessels, when discussing large claims, groundings, sinkings, andcollisions come to mind, but looking at these data, although those types of accidents do occur, in
actuality more commonplace incidents, such as crew claims and damage to Harbor facilities, occur
more often. These commonplace accidents have the potential to be very costly, so it is important to
pay them close attention.

Next, we'll look at trends within each large claim category, using ocean-going vessel data.

2-1. Crew Claims
As discussed above, the greatest share of large claims we handle are crew claims. Many of our members struggle tohandle these crew claims.
Graph 15 shows a breakdown of crew claims. This graph divides crew claims into the categories of illness, injury, death,and other, and shows the number of claims of each type and the amount of insurance money for each type. "Deaths"
include illnesses and injuries which resulted in death. "Other" includes ship desertion, etc. In terms of numbers ofclaims, there were many claims for illnesses (205) and deaths (206). In comparison, the number of injury claims (156)
was somewhat low. In terms of insurance money, on the other hand, deaths came in first, at $51,819 thousand while
illnesses and injuries came out about even, at roughly $35,000 thousand each. Insurance money were roughly equal for
illnesses and injuries, but claim amounts tended to be high for situations which unfortunately resulted in deaths.

Detailed Breakdown of Numbers of Crew Claims

Detailed Breakdown of Insurance Money of Crew Claims
5%

4%$6,58223 claims

35%

206 claims

Total

590

26%

35%

$33,188

Total

205 claims

41%

claims$51,819$126,751
thousand28%

26%$35,162

156 claims
Illness

InjuryDeath(Unit： $1,000）
Other

Illness

Injury

Death

Other

[Graph 15. Detailed Breakdown of Numbers and Insurance Money of Crew claims]

Graph 16 shows the ratios of nationalities of crew members. Foreign crew members have become an essential part ofJapanese ship operation in recent years. There are many Filipino crew members working around the world. There aremany Filipinos on the crews of ships which use our insurance. Therefore, as Graph 16 shows, an overwhelming shareof claims are for Filipino crew members, accounting for 56% of the total. This is followed by Japanese and Koreancrew members. Other nationalities include Vietnamese, Russians, Bangladeshis, and Taiwanese. Because these are－ 21 －

statistics for each nationality, per-nationality accident rates cannot be compared without dividing the number by the
total number of crew members of that nationality. However unfortunately, we have not been able to assess the numberof crew members of each nationality, so this comparison is not possible.

Number of Claims by Nationality of Crew Member
Indonesia 7

4%Myanmar

4%

China

4%

India 23

21

Other 31

22

1%
5%

Total

12% Korea 74
14%

590

claimsPhillipines 328

56%Japan 84

[Graph 16. Number of Claims by Nationality of Crew Member]

Graph 17 shows a breakdown of the ratios of the individual illnesses and injuries that make up large claims.
The largest proportion of illnesses is circulatory related cardiac arrests and visceral diseases. This was followed bybrain and cranial illnesses such as strokes and cerebral infarctions, cancer, and lifestyle diseases such as high bloodpressure and diabetes. This indicates that many illnesses are lifestyle related diseases.
Close attention must also be paid to increasingly high-profile psychiatric illnesses. While the number of cases islow, the majority of major psychiatric illness incidents are the result of crew members becoming prisoners of pirates.
The terror of being attacked by pirates has been known to produce lingering problems such as post-traumatic stressdisorder (PTSD). Another example of psychiatric illness-related incidents is suicides on-board vessels. The stress oflife on a ship, and of difficulties in interpersonal relationships with those of other nationalities, can produce mental
problems, so it is important to create environments on ships which foster communication between crew members.
There is no graph that shows insurance money for illnesses, but the breakdown is roughly identical to that of thenumber of these incidents.

－ 23 －

Detailed Breakdown of Illnesses
１%

Gastrointestinal２%

Suicide２%

Back pain

3%

Psychiatric illness

4%

Liver / gall bladder / pancreas 11

4%

Respiratory

4%

Kidney / bladder

14

10%

Lifestyle disease30

4Other 57

7

6

19 %

Circulatory

79

26%

B
Brain
/ cranial

44

14%

Cancer

33

11%

10

Total

307

claims12[Graph 17. Detailed Breakdown of Illnesses] (including illnesses which resulted in death)

Graph 18 shows a breakdown of injuries. Slips which result in fractures and injuries caused by falling in cargo holds
were the main injury types, accounting for 34% of all injuries. There were also cases of injuries which occurred whenhandling onboard equipment and injuries caused by mooring lines breaking and striking crew members.
Although few in number, there were injuries caused by fights between crew members. As with the psychiatric illnesses and suicides above, this indicates a potential lack of communication between crew members.
There is no graph which breaks down insurance money for injuries, but, as with illnesses, the breakdown is roughly
identical to that of the number of these incidents. When injuries result in residual disabilities, residual disability
benefits must be paid out in accordance with the employment contracts of the injured crew members, so, necessarily,
the insurance money tend to be large.

Detailed Breakdown of Injuries

１ % Fights 23%

3%

Equipment explosions, etc.

4%

Large waves

8%

Man overboard

16%

Lifeboats

Other

11

7%

5

5

Slips / falls 56

7

34%

Total

166

14

Strikes by lines, etc.

claims27
Equipment handling 39

24%[Graph 18. Detailed Breakdown of Injuries] (including injuries which resulted in death)－ 25 －

In particular, there were a large number of cases where injuries to Filipino crew members developed into lawsuits in
the Philippines, resulting in expensive benefits above those specified in employment contracts as well as additional
trial defense costs for hiring lawyers, etc., which has had a notable impact on our Club’s insurance money results.
Even for non-large claims, lifestyle diseases such as high blood pressure and diabetes account for some share ofillnesses, and slips and cargo hold falls are common causes of injuries. Preventing these kinds of incidents will require
improvements to the lifestyles of crew members, and improved safety awareness.

2-2. Cargo Damages
We receive many inquiries wondering why, when cargo insurance is arranged separately, P&I insurance is involved.
Before looking at cargo damage trends, a brief answer to this question is in order.
Generally, cargo owners insure their cargo using cargo insurance (see note below), and if damage occurs to theircargo, compensation is provided by that cargo insurance. When responsibility for cargo damage lies with the carrier(the person who signed the B/L), such as when cargo is damaged by water leakage from a vessel hatch, the insurer issues a subrogate claim to the carrier (generally a cargo claim). P&I provides compensation to carrier who are our Club
members for liabilities resulting from cargo damage. Because of this, when it is clear that cargo has been damaged,
P&I is contacted, and we begin ascertaining the cause of the damage and the facts of the situation in preparation for
future cargo claims from the insurer.
(Note)
Cargo insurance ： Insurance taken out by the cargo owner to cover loss of property inthe event that an accident, etc., causes damage to cargo, which is theirproperty. (Like Hull insurance or automobile insurance)
P&I insurance： Insurance taken out by the vessel owner to cover their own liability inthe event that vessel owner causes damage to the property of a cargoowner and a claim for compensation is made by the cargo owner.
(Liability insurance)***Optional for coastal vessels!!

Graph 19 shows cargo damage trends for each vessel type. There was a high incidence of large cargo damage
accidents for bulk carriers, chemical tankers, general cargo vessels, and container vessels. For bulk carriers, there
were many cases of cargo damage caused by fresh or seawater leakage, or by water damage paired with short delivery
damage. For chemical tankers, there was a great deal of quality degradation (off-spec) damage caused by seawater
seeping into cargo during pre-loading or during voyages. For general cargo vessels there were many cases of cargocollapsing due to poor stowage or rough seas, damaging the cargo. For container vessels, there were many incidents ofcontainers falling into the water due to problems with vessel on-deck container securing materials (deck sockets, etc.)
or rough seas. For chemical tankers, when quality degradation damages occurred, there were numerous cases where
the unit price of the cargo was relatively high, or damages were high because the incident resulted in the total loss ofthe cargo tank. These will result in cargo claims which can be exceptionally high, so careful attention must be paid tothese cases.

－ 27 －

Numbers of Cargo Damage Accidents by Vessel Type
2%

Clean / dirty tankers

42%

Ore / coal vessels

5%

Frozen / refrigerated lifters

7%

Product tankers

8%

Container vessels

9%

General cargo vessels

Pure Car Carriers

3

LPG tankers

2

Bulk carriers

94

4
14

18

Total

1%
1%

36%

258

21

claims23
Chemical tankers

75

29%

[Graph 19. Numbers and Ratios of Cargo Damage Accidents by Vessel Type]2-3. Collisions
Over the seven year period there were 73 large ocean-going vessel collisions.
Collisions involve multiple parties and stakeholders, making claim processing complicated. As with cargo damage, we
often receive inquiries asking who will cover which damage, so it would be best to first briefly explain which insurers
cover which compensation. The insurance types which apply to each damage type are indicated below.

* Note 1:

Damage to the vessel

Damage to the other vessel

Hull damage： Hull & Machinery insurance

Hull damage： Hull & Machinery insurance／ P&I insurance（ ＊ Note 1）

Vessel cargo： Cargo insurance

Other vessel's cargo： Hull & Machinery insurance／ P&I insurance（ ＊ Note 1）

Crew injuries： P&I insurance

Crew injuries： P&I insurance

Oil spills： P&I insurance

Oil spills： P&I insurance

Wreck removal： P&I insurance

Wreck removal： P&I insurance

When an entered vessel collides with another vessel, causing damage to the other vessel's hull, cargo,or other property, compensation is normally covered in accordance with the hull & machinery insurance
running down clause (RDC), but P&I may provide some compensation for the damages listed above, depending on the terms and conditions of insurance contracts. For example, for hull & machinery insurance
contracts underwritten by Lloyd's and used around the world (ITC Hulls), the hull & machinery insurer
covers compensation for 3/4 of the damage to the other vessel, and P&I covers the remaining 1/4.
For coastal vessel insurance, compensation is covered by the hull & machinery insurer.

－ 29 －

Damages for collisions between ships are
decided after determining to what degrees theinsured vessel and the other vessel were collision liability. For example, consider a collision
where our entered vessel is 40% responsible,
and the other vessel is 60% responsible for thecollision. Based on this responsibility ratio,
our vessel would be responsible for paying
40% of the damages incurred to the other vessel, and the other vessel would be responsible
for paying 60% of the damages incurred to
our vessel. Our vessel's insurer would provide
compensation for 40% of damages to the othervessel, and would negotiate to claim the 60% in damages to our vessel.

Big

5 Ships Perils

Collisions Groundings Strandings
Fires

Sinkings

Large collisions occur to our entered vessels of every type, in every region, and at any time. The number of collisions
with Chinese fishing boats in waters off the coast of China has been increasing in recent years. This is a trend which
requires ongoing attention. When our vessel or other vessel sinks, has an oil spill, or has crew members (especiallyfisher men) who are injured or died, insurance money tend to be high.
Collisions are one of the "big five ship perils", together with sinkings, groundings, strandings, and fires. They can result in tremendous amounts of damage. For example, consider a collision with a large tanker on a busy shipping route,causing the tanker to sink. Further, consider what would happen if this resulted in a major oil spill which washedashore, unfortunately, on a nearby coast with a thriving fishing industry. The extent of the damages incurred would be
immeasurable. The world is growing ever more environmentally conscious, and even a single incident like this would
not only subject the vessel owner to criticism around the world, but could have a major impact on the amount of trust
society placed in them. Close attention needs to be paid every day to prevent collisions such as this from occurring.

2-4. Groundings
Over the seven year period there were 22 large grounding accidents. As with collisions, they occurred to our insured
vessels of every type, in every region, and at any time.
One of the key points involved in determining whether a grounding accident is large case or not was whether it
involves the spilling of fuel oil into the sea. In areas where the grounding occurs on rocks, tetrapods, etc., there is ahigher likelihood of damage to the bottom of the vessel, resulting in spills of fuel oil or the like. Fuel oil spills resultin expensive cleanups, as well as potentially causing damages to the fishing industry, etc. In particular, groundings
on coral reefs can become global environmental problems, so particular care is needed in this area. Damage to thebottoms of vessels can allow sea water to enter the vessel, damaging vessel equipment (especially equipment in engine
rooms). In some cases, the damage may be severe enough that the entire vessel needs to be written off, requiring owners to make the painful decision to give up the vessel. When vessels are determined to be total losses, they are treatedas wreck, the handling of which requires additional removal expenses. The removal of ship wreck can be both timeconsuming and very costly, depending on the size of the vessel and where she grounds.
－ 31 －

2-5. Fires
Over the seven year period there were 9 fires, another of the "big five ship perils". They occurred in various locations,with various causes, but most of the fires handled by us have been in Asia.
Fortunately, none of these cases have been the kind of tragic accidents which attract media coverage, and most have
only resulted in cargo damage. However, there have been some cases where the fires resulted in the loss of crew
member lives.
Fires run an extremely high risk of becoming large, tragic accidents. Even a small fire, if it results in an explosion, can
not only damage cargo and the environment, but can threaten the lives of crew members and the continued existenceof the vessel itself.

2-6. Damage to Harbor Facilities and Fishing Facilities
The first thing many people think of when they think about P&I insurance compensation may be damage to harborand fishing facilities. They are an obvious example of third party liability insurance, one of P&I's typical types ofcompensation. As discussed earlier, accidents resulting in damage to harbor facilities and fishing facilities are notable
accidents to which close attention must be paid, both in terms of number of accidents and insurance money. The outerring of Graph 20 shows a breakdown the numbers of accidents resulting in damage to harbor facilities and fishingfacilities. Over the past seven years there were 140 cases of damage to harbor facilities (86%) and 23 cases of damage
to fishing facilities (14%). The inner ring pie graph shows the breakdown of type of facility damaged.
The most common type of large harbor facility damage related accident was pier damage, accounting for roughly halfof all harbor facility damage. "Piers" include jetties and dolphins. There were many cases of damage when berthing,and incidents such as punching holes in caisson piers or bending mooring dolphin piles resulted in major repairs
with correspondingly high construction costs. The next most common type of damage, after pier damage, was fenderdamage, which often occurred at the same time as pier damage accidents. There are various types of fenders, from
relatively inexpensive ones to expensive ones. It is important to note that some large fenders can cost over ¥10 million
each. Other harbor damage included damage to submerged cables, conveyor belts, hoppers, and the like. Accidents toland-based cranes, loading arms, and the like, while accounting for few of the total number of accidents, resulted inhigh repair costs, as well as, in some cases, loss of time damages.

Damage to fishing facilities can be broadly divided into "accidents which caused damage to fishing nets such as
stationary nets and dragnets" and "accidents which caused damage to seaweed (laver), tune, scallop, seaweed (wakame),or other aquaculture facilities". In large claims, damage to aquaculture facilities occured more than damage to fishingnets, but when non-large claims were also included, accidents involving damage to fishing nets constituted theoverwhelming majority.

－ 33 －

Breakdown of Damage to Harbor Facilities and Fishing Facilities
9%
2%
1%
2%
13 %
1%

Other aquaculture
facilities14
Seaweed aquaculture
facilities 4

Fishing facilities
23

46%

75

14 %

Dragnets 2
Stationary nets

Piers

3

Other harbour facilities 21

Automobile andcargo loading vehicles

2

Total

163

claims6%

Loading arms

5%

Cranes 9

6%

Buoys 10

Harbour facilities
140

86%

9

Fenders

14

9%[Graph 20. Breakdown of Damage to Harbor Facilities and Fishing Facilities by Number of Cases]

When aquaculture facilities are damaged, restoring the facilities to their original conditions involves significant repair
expenses, but it is also important to note that these accidents also result in indirect damages, such as compensation forloss of income. For example, when aquaculture facilities are damaged, their owners may make claims for compensation for the income that they would have received had the accident not occurred. The contents and amounts of theseclaims must be scrutinized, so please contact us first if any claims like this are received.

2-7. Oil Spills
There were 23 large oil spills over the seven year period.
As was touched on in the section on collisions, there is a growing awareness of and interest in the environmental
impact of oil spills. While frequency varies by ship type and region, several large oil spills occur each year, many ofwhich occur during bunkering. These include accidents such as sounding errors resulting in fuel tanks overfilling andfuel oil overflowing from air vents, or valves being operated incorrectly, allowing fuel oil to overflow into the sea.

－ 35 －

Most large oil spills involve large amounts of spilled fuel oil, resulting in expensive cleanups. Fishing industry damage caused by oil spills is well known, but in addition spilled oil can enter harbors, adhering to fishing boats, yachts,
pleasure boats, and the like.
Spilled oil can be broadly broken down into volatile "white oils", like gasoline, kerosene, and diesel oil, and "blackoils", like crude oil and heavy oil. In the case of "white oil" spills, the oils evaporate rapidly, so precautionary work,
preventing ignition sources from causing fires or explosions, is more important than cleaning work. In the case of"black oil" spills, on the other hand, the oils do not dissolve in water, tend to float, and are highly viscous, making
them adhere easily to objects, so what is needed is a system for rapidly removing the oil in order to prevent the spillfrom spreading. However, there are limits to the amount of non-proliferation materials of spilled oil possessed byentered vessels, and they are insufficient to prevent the dispersion of oil which has spilled into the sea. This makes it
necessary for cleaners to set up oil fences and soak up spills using oil sorbents soon after the spill, to prevent it fromspreading. Performing this cleaning work requires not only many cleaning personnel, but also cleaning work tailoredto the spill conditions, weather, sea conditions, and locations where the spill has washed ashore. The permission of therelevant authorities is required to use oil treatment reagents. Using them without permission may result in unexpected
problems with the authorities and local fishing cooperatives. A key point in handling oil spills is to use experienced
surveyors and cleaners in order to be able to establish cleaning systems and negotiate with authorities and other relatedparties, without delays. We dispatch surveyors and cleaners appropriate for each particular accident, so please contact
us as soon as possible after an accident occurs.

－ 37 －