Jurisdiction Of The Coastal State In Relation To A Floating Drilling Rig Depending On The Site (Location) Of Drilling Operations In The World Ocean

Occupation: Assistant Professor of the Department of Legal Regulation of Fuel and Energy Complex
Affiliation: Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO University of the MFA of Russia)
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow

Journal name

Energy law forum

Edition

Issue 2

Pages

85-90

Abstract

Equipment and technologies for exploration and development of offshore resources of hydrocarbons are among the most complex in the world and keep actively developing. Mineral resources located in more and more remote areas with severe natural and climatic conditions in different areas of the World Ocean characterized by different international legal status are involved in the development. In offshore areas, for drilling of oil wells at the stage of geological exploration, license holders use the following artificial installations and structures: 1) artificial islands; 2) submersible drilling rigs; 3) self-elevating drilling rigs; 4) semi-submersible drilling rigs; 5) drilling vessels. However, it is the floating drilling rigs that currently represent modern technologies in the field of deep seabed mining of hydrocarbons. In world practice, deepwater floating drilling rigs are legally qualified as “vessels”, and they are subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state. The goal of this article is to analyze the jurisdiction of coastal states in relation to floating drilling rigs in various water areas: the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf, and the high sea. The author considers the legal status of floating drilling rigs, their registration in the registers of ships under the “flag of convenience”, the jurisdiction of coastal states in various water areas, the problem of competition between the jurisdictions of the coastal state and the flag state, and the gaps in the laws on protection of the marine environment from oil pollution.

Keywords

energy law, facilities of offshore hydrocarbon fields, installation, structure, vessel, offshore oil platform, floating drilling rig

Received

06.05.2018

Publication date

30.06.2018

Number of characters

18605

Cite Download pdf

GOST	Gavrilina E. Jurisdiction Of The Coastal State In Relation To A Floating Drilling Rig Depending On The Site (Location) Of Drilling Operations In The World Ocean // Energy law forum – 2018. – Issue 2 C. 85-90 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://mlcjournal.ru/S231243500021976-1-1 (circulation date: 07.05.2024). DOI: 10.18572/2410-4390-2018-2-85-90
MLA	Gavrilina, Elena A "Jurisdiction Of The Coastal State In Relation To A Floating Drilling Rig Depending On The Site (Location) Of Drilling Operations In The World Ocean." Energy law forum 2 (2018):85-90. DOI: 10.18572/2410-4390-2018-2-85-90
APA	Gavrilina E. (2018). Jurisdiction Of The Coastal State In Relation To A Floating Drilling Rig Depending On The Site (Location) Of Drilling Operations In The World Ocean. Energy law forum (2), pp.85-90 DOI: 10.18572/2410-4390-2018-2-85-90

Introduction

Jurisdiction of the Coastal State in Various Areas of the World Ocean According to the UNCLOS

Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone

Exclusive Economic Zone

Continental Shelf

High Sea

Problem of Competition of Jurisdictions Exemplified by Deepwater Horizon Semi-Submersible Drilling Rig

Laws on Protection of the Marine Environment from Oil Pollution

MARPOL

International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter of 1972

Conclusions:


1	Introduction
2	As the demand for oil grows, the need to discover new hydrocarbon fields also increases. It is already customary that oil platforms of several hundred meters with the size of the largest onshore facilities are built, moved by water and installed in remote sea areas. Up to hundreds of wells can be drilled from such platforms to open reservoir rocks in an area of several tens of square kilometers. The topsides of these platforms weigh up to hundreds of thousands of tons and contain a full range of equipment for drilling, production, preparation, storage, and shipment of oil as well as life support systems for their crews. Millions of tons of oil and billions of cubic meters of gas are transported from these installations and structures to the world markets [1, page 174].
3	Peculiarities of floating complexes for hydrocarbon extraction are expressed in the absence of support by the seabed. The most common type of the offshore drilling rigs are semi-submersible drilling rigs (SSDR) having the mobility and stability advantages, which makes them an ideal tool for deepwater drilling. The advantage of this type of installation is a good stability in relation to the drilling vessel.
4	The drilling rig is located on a platform, under which floatation tanks are fixed. Positioning at the drilling point is ensured using an anchor system or a dynamic positioning system. To increase the stability of the rig, the floatation tanks are submerged. However, longer time is needed to position the SSDR. Tugboats or carrying ships are usually used for transportation.
5	One of the problems is that the status of this property in international treaties is not clearly and unambiguously determined — whether the floating drilling rig belongs to the category of “vessels” or “artificial installations and structures”, which gives rise to numerous difficulties, primarily those related to competition between jurisdictions of the coastal state and the flag state. This problem will be discussed in more detail below. Here, we shall only note that the qualification of Deepwater Horizon floating drilling rig as the “vessel” and its registration in the register of ships “under the flag of convenience” clearly demonstrated vulnerable provisions of the international law.
6	Jurisdiction of the Coastal State in Various Areas of the World Ocean According to the UNCLOS
7	The law of the sea contains two competing principles: the right of free navigation is opposed to the powers of the coastal state to control its coastal waters [2].
8	The UNCLOS specifies five water areas, each of which has its own jurisdiction and differs in the scope of supervisory powers of the authorities of the coastal state or the flag state of the vessel to settle legal issues related to the activity of the marine vessels. Each sea area has its own rules for the passage of vessels and, accordingly, in each sea area, states, both the coastal and the shipping ones, have different rights and obligations: 1) territorial sea, 2) contiguous zone, 3) exclusive economic zone, 4) continental shelf, 5) high sea.
9	Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone
10	Article 3 of the UNCLOS defines the “territorial sea” as a belt set by a coastal state and extending at most twelve nautical miles from the baseline. Within the boundaries of the territorial sea, the coastal state has sovereignty over the seabed and subsoil (paragraph 2, Article 2 of the UNCLOS). Moreover, paragraph 1 (f), Article 21 of the UNCLOS authorizes the coastal states in the area of the territorial sea to adopt laws and rules on preservation of the coastal state’s environment as well as prevention and reduction of its pollution, and maintaining it under control.
11	However, the main problem is that the laws of the coastal state do not apply to the standards of design and construction of foreign vessels as well as to crew designation and equipment of foreign vessels (paragraph 2, Article 21 of the UNCLOS).
12	The UNCLOS sets some restrictions on the powers of the coastal state, especially with regard to the right of foreign vessels to an innocent passage.
13	The contiguous zone (the first zone from the coast in international waters) may be 3 to 24 nautical miles wide, counting from the baseline, and within this zone, the coastal states have an exclusive jurisdiction over customs, tax (fiscal), immigration, and health legislation. Regulation of this water area is also limited by the right of foreign vessels to an innocent passage.
14	Exclusive Economic Zone
15	The coastal state within the exclusive economic zone has sovereign rights to explore, operate, store and manage hydrocarbon resources (paragraph 1 (a), Article 56 of the UNCLOS).
16	Moreover, within this zone, the coastal state has limited jurisdiction with respect to protection and preservation of the marine environment, creation and use of artificial islands, installations and structures (Article 56 of the UNCLOS).
17	At the same time, in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state has “the exclusive right to construct as well as to permit and regulate creation, operation and use of these structures” (paragraph 1, Article 60 of the UNCLOS). However, it cannot require vessels operating in its exclusive economic zone to comply with special design and construction standards. Article 58 of the UNCLOS confers jurisdiction over vessels in the exclusive economic zone to the flag state.

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Sochneva I.O., Sochnev O.Ya. Exploration of Hydrocarbons in Arctic Waters: Search for Technical Solutions for the Arctic Seas of Russia. Moscow, 2016.

2. Louis B. Soht ET AL., Law of the sea in a nut shell (2nd ed. 2010) (“From the early times when sailors and fishermen first ventured into the sea, two principles traditionally governed the law of the sea: the right of the coastal state to control a narrow strip along the coast, and the freedoms of navigation and fishing in the high seas beyond that coastal area”).

3. George K. Walker and John E. Noyes, Definitions for the Law of the Sea Convention Part 11, 33 Cal. W. Int’l L.J. 191, 318 (explaining the use of the two terms as the result of two separate committees working on the LOS provisions at UNCLOS III and that the terms “ship” and “vessel” were probably viewed as identical at the time of drafting).

4. Panama, Liberia, and the Marshall Islands are the largest registers and actively market their flags as a convenient registration. Review of Maritime Transport 2009, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2009).

5. Emeka Duruigbo, Multinational Corporations and compliance with International Regulations Relating to the Petroleum Industry, 7 Ann. Surv. Int’l & Comp. L. 101, 115 (2001). Some spills caused form vessels under a flag of convenience include Erika, Prestige, Deepwater Horizon, Amoco Cadiz, and Sea Empress.

6. Press Release, BP Confirms that Transocean Ltd Issued the following statement today, BP Global, Apr. 21, 2010 at http://www. bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryld=2012968&.

7. Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger, Foreign flagging of offshore rigs skirts U.S. safety rules: The Marshall Islands, not the U.S., had the main responsibility for safety inspections on the Deepwater Horizon., Los Angeles Times, Jun. 14, 2010 at http://arti- cles.latimes.com/2OlO/jun/14/nation/la-na-oil-inspection-20100615.

8. See Kate Galbraith, Gap in Rules on Oil Spills From Wells, N.Y. Times, May 16, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes. com/2OlO/05/17/business/energy-environment/17green.html (“there are large gaps in what the international agreements cover .... [T]he international maritime conventions apply “primarily or exclusively” to accidents involving tankers...”).

9. MARPOL.

10. Collection of Current Treaties, Agreements and Conventions Concluded by the USSR with Foreign States. Issue XXXII. Moscow, 1978.

11. It was concluded in Brussels on November 29, 1969. The Protocol of 1992 on Amendment of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969 (as amended on November 1, 2003).

12. According to the provisions of Article 94 of the UNCLOS, in accordance with its internal law, every state exercises jurisdiction and control over vessels flying its flag. With respect to the vessels flying its national flag, every state shall take measures required to ensure safety on the sea, in particular with regard to the design, equipment, manning of the vessels, and inspections.

13. Article 1 of the Protocol of 1992 gives the following definition of the vessel: “the vessel means any marine vessel and a marine floating craft of any type constructed or adapted for transportation of oil in bulk as cargo, provided the vessel capable of transporting oil and other goods is considered to be a vessel only when it actually transports oil in bulk as cargo as well as during any cruise following such transportation unless it is proved that there were no oil remaining after such transportation of oil in bulk on board”.

14. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter (London, 1972) defines “Vessels and Aircraft” as waterborne and airborne vehicles of any sort. This term includes hovercrafts and floating vessels, whether they are self-propelled or not.

15. Kolodkin A.L., Gutsulyak V.N., Bobrova Yu.V. World Ocean. International Legal Regime. Main Problems. Moscow : Statut, 2007; Romanova V.V. Legal Regulation of Construction and Modernization of Energy Facilities. Moscow : Yurist, 2012; Sochneva I.O. Modern Technologies for Development of Offshore Oil and Gas Fields. Moscow, 2016; Romanova V.V. Specifics of legal regulation of oil industry power facilities // Energy Law Forum. 2017. No. 2; Romanova V.V. Energy Law Order: Current State and Tasks. Moscow : “Yurist” Publishing House. 2016.