CoverSlide 1

Good morning/afternoon. My name is Jon Lay, and in addition to
being the Global Emergency Preparedness and Response Manager
for ExxonMobil I have had the privilege over the last four years tohave chaired the IOGP/IPIECA Joint Industry Project on Oil Spill
Response. But first a few words about the theme of this
symposium. The title of the 2016 PAJ Oil Spill Symposium is“Maintaining Future Oil Spill Response Preparedness”. When theorganizers thought of this title I think they were being polite. If I
was being direct - which sometimes I am known to be – I mightchange the title to “Maintaining Future Oil Spill Response
Preparedness in a mini ice-age” because that, in truth, is what weface. We face an environment where investment for Oil Spill
Preparedness and Response is limited because of the current crude
price scenario, and as responders and planners, we face an equallychallenging situation where the threat of a major Oil Spill has
slipped down the “worry list” of executive managements in theface of other concerns such as Climate Change. Not that Climate
Change isn’t important and real, but it must not be permitted to
distract us from the urgency and immediacy of planning to prevent,and if necessary respond to a major oil spill. Over the next half anhour I will be giving you an overview of the work we have been
doing in Phase I of the JIP, much of which is relevant to working
effectively in these challenging times.

Slide 2For those of you who are unfamiliar with IOGP and IPIECA, I will be
describing who they are, the actions we have taken on spill
response through the JIP since the Montara and Macondo
incidents, how we see the future on response issues, and where webelieve that there is an opportunity for industry and regulators towork together, globally, to put in place consistent, agreed, andeffective standards for oil spill response preparedness.

Slide 3

Firstly, an explanation of who the global Oil and Gas Industry
associations IPIECA and IOGP are. IPIECA is the global associationfor environmental and social issues for both the upstream anddownstream oil and gas industry.
It is a non-advocacy Association formed in 1974 following thelaunch of UNEP; membership covers over half of the world’s oil
production.
The International Oil and Gas Producers Association (IOGP) works
on behalf of the world’s oil and gas companies and organizations topromote safe, responsible and sustainable exploration andproduction
IOGP encompasses most of the world's leading publicly-traded,private and state-owned oil and gas companies, industry
associations and upstream service companies.
The principal difference between the two associations is that IOGP
is exclusively upstream, and IPIECA covers only environmental andsocial issues, but for both upstream and downstream; IOGP has an
advocacy & lobbying mandate, while IPIECA concentrates ontechnical advocacy and best practice on environmental and social
issues.

Slide 4

The blow out and fire leading to the destruction of the West Atlas
platform in the Timor Sea, and the Macondo – perhaps better
known as the Deepwater Horizon - incident occurred within monthsof each other.
These are two dates that we will never forget in our industry andthe events on those dates changed the way that we thought about
upstream prevention and response forever.
Lives were lost and pollution was caused and the industry made thecollective declaration that this must never be allowed to happen
again.
For the global associations this meant getting to grips with the root
causes of the accidents and then looking at the gaps – and seeing
how we can fill them by augmenting best practices on Prevention,
Intervention, and Response.

Slide 5IOGP formed the “GIRG” - the Global Industry Response Group –which identified five key capability areas, of which three –Prevention and Drilling Safety, Capping and Containment, and Oil
Spill Response, were felt to be the most important for developing
best practices and capabilities.

Slide 6

As a result of “GIRG”, IOGP formed this three-part structure
Industry Response Group project. Those of you who are familiar
with the “bow – tie” concept will immediately understand that theleft hand side of this diagram represents the left hand side of thebow – tie (prevention) while the two columns on the right handside represent intervention and response.
So we have Prevention… better capabilities and practice in wellengineering design, creation of training and examination programs
on well operations, etc.
We have Intervention… production of four very large capping stackdevices located in Stavanger (Norway), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Cape
Town (South Africa) and Singapore – these are equipped with avariety of adaptors that can fit 95% of all wellheads. This is only
one of many different capping stack systems that are available
round the world.
When it came to response, the project that IPIECA was asked tohandle on the basis of their expertise in Oil Spill Response… the Oil
Spill Response Joint Industry Project or “JIP”
This was designed as a three year project (2012 – 2014) addressing
nineteen recommendations for improving spill response developed
following the Montara and Macondo incidents. During the project
we were asked to take on a substantial amount of new work so weare only now finishing Phase I of this project
We have nineteen oil industry members in phase 1, including INPEXfrom Japan, and while dispersant issues are being addressed inabout 20% of the JIP work streams, the project covers many otherimportant aspects as well.

Slide 7

The outputs from the JIP can be placed into four categories:- Firstly, Good Practice Guidance: we have written 24 Good
Practice Guides and in Phase II we are doing their translations.
These documents will replace the existing IPIECA Oil Spill
Response report series- Secondly, short technical reports in the “JIP” series, developed
to communicate technical good practice or to make it accessible
to external parties.
- Thirdly, pure research & longer technical documents which aredetailed technical research and information- And lastly, “outreach” materials, videos/animations, and what
we call “Glance/Scan” materials which are short briefing
PowerPoints and briefing papers highlighting key topics

Slide 8

So what have we done?
- With regard to dispersants we recognize that dispersant isn’t
always the answer in every spill. But where it can help – oreven be the prime response tool, we believe that both
regulators and industry have to understand both its advantages
and limitations.
- With the help of SINTEF we have created a system that attempts
to simulate the behaviour of oil and dispersant at depth. In thiscomputer controlled system you can vary the Dispersant to Oil
ratio and other system conditions to evaluate the effectivenessof dispersant action. The droplet size is measured by Laserinterferometry and the system can test one dispersant / oil
combination every fifteen minutes.
- Using dispersant on a Macondo type blowout is different to ashipping spill, which has a finite quantity of oil and a set
weathering duration. Despite the establishment of an industry
global dispersant stockpile of 5,000 cubic metres the logistics ofgetting the dispersant to the theatre of operations can bechallenging and so we have developed guidance on logistics anddispersant planning.
- We’ve also developed guidance on Post-spill monitoring using
the SMART protocol and where we believe it should and should
not be used.
Slide 9We’ve also seen that in many developing countries there isconfusion on the difference between and the complexities oflicensing and regulation. The document you see here leads thereader through the fundamentals of dispersant licensing andapprovals and while it is targeted at developing countries it may
also be of use to countries with established programs.

Slide 10

Across industry there are a total of at least 12 In-Situ Burning or“ISB” projects taking place between ourselves, the IOGP Arctic JIP,
and the work being coordinated by the American Petroleum
Industry in DC. This slide summarizes that work.

Slide 11

One of the early pieces of work we carried out was on Risk
Assessment and Response Planning for Offshore platforms whichanswers the question “How much spill response equipment do I
really need for offshore operations?” This is based on principles
developed in Norway and used very effectively there for several
years.
Built for us by DNV GL in Oslo it conforms into the current appetite
for risk based solutions, especially in Europe. Members havetrialled this in several countries and while the process is complex,
by the end of the process you really will understand your risk profile
much better in terms of your response needs.
The document contains worked examples to help you understandthe steps involved.

Slide 12

As you can see from this slide, we have also produced Guidance on
the following:- Aerial dispersant spraying from a Jet platform- The possible legal structures for companies wishing to cooperate
on Mutual aid arrangements around the world- The importance of knowing the spill response characteristics ofoil that you produce, store, or transport ahead of any possible
incident, and- On evaluating the response effectiveness of Oil Spill Response
Organizations or “OSROs”

Slide 13

We have worked with the IOGP Geomatics and Metocean groups to
produce guidance on in-water surveillance of hydrocarbon releases,
satellite remote sensing, and modelling and while this is very
important, probably the most ground-breaking piece of work has
been Work Package 5 which is described in this slide.
Those of you who read the Macondo “Incident Specific
Preparedness Review” (ISPR) prepared by the US Coast Guard
following the Macondo incident may remember that one of thefindings was that there was a lack of a Common Operating Picture
system that could be integrated into the response organization.
We’ve put in place open standards for communications between
the situation on the ground and the command centre and this has
been adopted as a Recommended Practice by several key
organizations – for example the Open Geospatial Consortium.

Slide 14

Probably the biggest effort of the JIP in terms of cost, but more
importantly sweat equity, is the production of 24 Good Practice
Guides or “GPGs” on various aspects of Oil Spill Response. Twentytwo of these are completed in Phase I (Eighteen fully published andavailable and a further four under comment) and we envisage afurther three being completed as part of Phase II.

Slide 15

So here is the list of all 24 GPGs as they currently exist. We may
add one more document – Environmental Assessment andRestoration - and are looking at what is currently out there before
making a decision on whether to write that final document or not.
Some of you will know there is already a UNEP-IMO document onthat topic already and we are keen not to duplicate the document
unless we feel it needs to be re-written with a focus for industry.
We feel that these documents will end up being regarded as thelegacy of the work we are doing on various aspects of Oil Spill
Response.

Slide 16

Being that these GPGs are so important, we wanted to answer thequestion you are probably asking which is:“How do these GPG’s and guidance documents help us in satisfying
regulator principles and expectations?” so we have mapped the
GPGs to the principles published by the “IOPER” who are theInternational Offshore Petroleum Environment Regulators forum,
who we have been working with very closely.

Slide 17

The first of these principles are that response capability should be
fit for purpose.
The key to defining “fit for purpose” is understanding scenarios,
which lead to understanding risks and defining needs
As an example, I point to the JIP publication “Risk Assessment andResponse Planning for offshore installations” which presents a
detailed methodology for an operator to carry out an assessmentof response resource needs and capability and to prove tothemselves and the regulator that they have the ability to cascade
resources in to the spill area
This provides a validated link into a step-wise contingency planning
process, which is how the industry is – or should be - consistently
planning for upstream OSR

Slide 18…and as a second example I point to the work we have done aspart of the “Surveillance, Modelling and Visualization” or SMV
program of the JIP, where we assessed six scenarios to evaluate
combinations of technologies to detect and monitor hydrocarbons
in:- An onshore spill- A release at a coastal terminal- An oil tanker in transit offshore- An offshore platform oil and/or gas—both surface andsubsurface accidental releases of finite amount- An offshore pipeline rupture- A deep water well blowout—Macondo-type continuous release
For each of these we looked at SMV tools to help improve
responses

Slide 19

A second IOPER principle is that response performance levels
should be set to promote effective preparedness. Now our view isthat there are some situations in which strict performancemeasures can directly correlate to effective responses – but there
are relatively few of them. Identifying meaningful performancemeasures for preparedness is a challenge. Our preference is tofocus on assessment rather than numerical measures
Some examples:
The US EDRC approach for mechanical recovery is flawed morethan a few kilometers off shore
Duplication of resources for each operator in the same basin is
inefficient and counterproductive
Data – driven NEBA assessments attempt to quantify qualitativedecisions
So…. If these are problematic, what does work?

Slide 20

An example of where performance and capability criteria DO work
would be our assessment / audit document on response
effectiveness of OSROs.. but even that is limited because while “box– ticking” is great at establishing whether the components are
there… it is NOT effective at demonstrating whether they will work
as intended in a real response - the only way to do this is throughparticipation and observation in planning and exercises. So, join us
on exercises! (you may not get a number but you will get a goodidea whether we know what we’re doing!)
In our view, participating in exercises will also help demonstrate theneed and value of pre-approvals in improving the speed andefficacy of response. We know how difficult it is for you regulators
to pre-approve but we firmly believe that time is our biggest enemy
and the politics during response approvals can mean you “lose thewar” before you have even started.
Finally, we also believe that an effective Incident Management
System is an underrated component of success.

Slide 21a, b, c, d

The next IOPER principle is that Response capability should be built
to be adaptable and we point to the evolving JIP Tiered
preparedness and Response model. With the specialized nature oftoday’s equipment and services, as well as the variable location ofoperations, spills and their associated responses can no longer beclassified based on volume. The Tiered Preparedness and Responsemodel has evolved to reflect the realities of today’s operational
environment.
This new model facilitates a tiered response by depicting which
response capabilities are needed and in what timeframe.

Slide 22[Presenter will describe the model depicted on the slide]Slide 23

Location factors, amongst many others, must be taken into accountwhen provisioning resources based on the principles of Tiered
Preparedness and Response; for example a remote location in acountry with access challenges (e.g. due to weather) even if it isnominally a Tier 1 location, will likely require a greater local
capacity due to possible limitations (e.g. weather related) on
equipment able to enter the country. Likewise, a coastal locationnear a Tier 3 response centre (e.g. OSRL Singapore) would requireless equipment than a location that was remote.

Slide 24

So we have developed a new Tiered Preparedness and Response
Model in which the 15 capabilities shown in the wheel essentiallyrepresent the scope of Tiered Preparedness and Response,
however, they can be broken out in a variety of ways.

Slide 25

The final IOPER principle is that Response capability should besustainable. Industry expects to utilize all sources of response
capability - commercial as well as mutual resources, and that is why
we recommend a scalable approach which allows for resources tocascade in from multiple international sources
Plans should include sustaining a response through multiple IMS
position backups and in terms of using commercial resources the
GRN: Global Response Network of OSROs provides access to abroader pool of responders than industry alone.
Industry expects to utilize all sources of response capability.
When we say “response capability should be sustainable” it isimportant to note that we do not view “sustainability” as a national
issue – it is much broader

Slide 26

So where do we have the opportunity to work together? For the
regulators in this audience I want to suggest where, globally, thereis scope for us to cooperate on the following:- The consistent use of global NEBA methodology – not Arctic
NEBA, US NEBA, European NEBA, Japanese NEBA, etc.
- Adoption of pre-approvals where supported by peacetime NEBA
conclusions- Ready access to all response tools as supported by NEBA
- Support for utilizing the most effective response tools first- Adoption of clear Tiered Preparedness and Response principles
in planning

Slide 27

We also want to work with you on:- Supporting efforts to remove or reduce barriers (people,
equipment, etc..)- Participating in exercises and drills- Adopting a risk – based approach to offshore response planning- Setting clear expectations for OSRO competency and capability- Setting realistic principles for exercise frequencies and thebasics of Contingency Planning

Slide 28

I want to close by drawing your attention to our suite of Good
Practice Guidance documents and showing you how they relate to
the Tiered Preparedness and Response principles that we havedeveloped.
It has been a long four years but we have a lot of product at theend of it which we now need your help in “spreading the word” sothat this material doesn’t just sit on the shelf. Rather, we want it
to become a mutual frame of reference and a basis for sensible
regulation for both industry and the regulatory community alike.
And that brings me back to my initial comments on the theme ofthis conference. I firmly believe that the only way forward for theindustry in times like these is to work closely with regulators to findcost-effective solutions to preparedness and response challenges.
Using the materials that we have developed in the JIP will help you
achieve that goal. I wish you all a wonderful conference and thankyou for your kind attention.