1. Latin American Panel Miami, 24 July 2003 “ POST PRESTIGE ” Peter M. Swift

3. Prestige Accident An INTERTANKO member company  Member in good standing for more than 14 years  Ship with only 2 owners – last since 1988  Only one classification society – ABS  Flag change to Bahamas from Panama  Recent surveys fully satisfactory: 2001: Special survey 2002: Annual survey PSC (Russia) Oil major (SIRE database)

4. Prestige Accident European Actions:  New measures to restrict single hulls in Europe  Heavy fuel oil to be carried in double hulls  Spanish decree (Italy follows)  “Malaga Treaty” – 200 mile exclusion zone for single hulls carrying heavy oils  UNCLOS challenged  Moves to declare Western European PSSA  Increase penal sanctions / criminalisation

5. Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction  It is imperative that ALL events surrounding the accident are investigated impartially

6. Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction  Places of Refuge must be addressed promptly

7. Safe Havens A Solution Waiting to be Implemented

8. “ It is now quite clear that, if decisive action had been taken at an early stage to move the ship to a more sheltered location, the ship and its cargo would almost certainly have been saved and any pollution would have been minimal. ” Bahamas Maritime Authority – release

9. Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction  The continued detention of master is not acceptable

11. Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction  The IMO is the proper forum for any new measures  International law must be upheld and strict adherence is essential

12. EU Proposals 1. Revision to EU Regulation EC 417/2002 2. Amendments to MARPOL Annex I Accelerated Phase-out of single hulls Expanded Condition Assessment Scheme Ban on Heavy Oil in single-hulled tankers

13. Single-hull tanker phase-out comparision IMO 13G – EU proposal

14. EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I IMO is the appropriate forum for this debate All such proposals must be subject to rigorous analysis and impact assessment Note decisions of only two years ago Concern that there are no compelling reasons for change Need stability and predictability to improve safety and environmental protection

15. Oil tanker fleet above 5,000 dwt as of June 2003 %

16. Tanker fleet: double hull development

17. EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I Accelerated Phase-out Withdrawal “Peaks” in 2003/2005 and 2010 Many young tankers withdrawn prematurely Will: Destabilise freight, shipbuilding and ship recycling markets Unsettle business planning environment Destroy USD 4 bn. asset values

18. Tanker fleet : 5,000 dwt and above mid 2003 by year of build and hull-type Number

19. Single-hull tanker phase-out 5,000 dwt and above Number

20. Tanker age profile-deliveries-phase-out Mil dwt

21. Tanker age profile-deliveries-phase-out Number

22. EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I Expanded Condition Assessment Scheme Inconsistent logic – CAS from 15 years of age, but tankers withdrawn irrespective of this provision CAS will require revisions if it is to be applied as proposed It will not be possible for all 15 y.o. Category 2 and 3 tankers to undertake CAS before April 2005

24. EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I Ban on Heavy Oil in single-hulled tankers Principal concerns: Definition of heavy crude oils Impact on certain oil trades Short term availability of double hull tonnage in certain shipping sectors, e.g. Panamax and possibly Aframax

25. EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I And finally Disappointment that there is NO reference to the NEED for PLACES of REFUGE

26. Phase-out schedules - million dwt

27. Phase-out schedules - number

28. www.intertanko.com

29. Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction  It is imperative that ALL events surrounding the accident are investigated impartially  Places of Refuge must be addressed promptly  The continued detention of master is not acceptable  The IMO is the proper forum for any new measures  International law must be upheld and strict adherence is essential