IAGC OGP HSE & Security forum 2 nd & 3 rd November 2010 Security HIPO Cameroun

Transcription

1 IAGC OGP HSE & Security forum 2 nd & 3 rd November 2010 Security HIPO Cameroun

2 Background 3D shallow water seismic project in the Rio del Ray Basin north in Cameroun. Requirement from local authorities to take armed forces aboard seismic vessel and to have armed guards in 4 guard vessels. MOC was done and permission from Flag-state in place. Security consultants were used both for assessment of general security situation and for assessment of BIR (Bataillon d Intervention Rapide). ISPS MARSEC level 1 for transit in the region & level 2 in port. There is no history of attack on vessels guarded by BIR, (we were told).

3 Incident description 0240 on the 25 th July in heavy rain and poor visibility Geo Mariner (seismic vessel), reports to chase boat, St. John that they see two echoes on the radar approaching the chase boat. St. John reports back that they can t see anything. 10 min later the chase boat reports back that she is under attack. One small vessel came up from astern and opened fire, in order to give cover to the one ahead to slide along the stb side attempting to board. The Captain gives full throttle ahead and gives port rudder while crawling on the deck. BIR opens fire on those trying to board. The attackers fired back for cover as they retreated. The actual attack is over within 5 minutes. 7,62 mm landed on the deck.

4 Incident description. In the daylight we found about 30 holes in accommodation superstructure. Four of them are in captain s cabin, (stb.side), one bullet went through under captain s bed, one in Ch.Eng. cabin, (stb.side), went through and stuck in the wall between Ch.Eng. and Ch.Off. cabin.

5 Contributing factors 1 Leadership & Commitment MOC was approved without follow up: Shore rep not assigned prior to startup. Extra resources review not done. 2 Policies & Objectives Breech of security policy trigged MOC, but was not given appropriate attention. E.g. rules of engagement not discussed with BIR. MOC for policy breach should act as trigger for extra resources review and review of RA. 3 Org. Resources & Documentation Security consultants knowledge about the area was not properly assessed. Contracted case boats and BIR did not participate in a joint security exercise at the start of the project. Resources assigned at a late stage. 4 Evaluation and Risk Management Hazards to chase boat, (fishing vessel), not identified. Risk underestimated as a result of inaccurate intelligence. Guard vessels not added to contract/tender review.

6 Contributing factors 5 Planning The security plan that was in place did not give adequate instructions of what to do in case of an attack on a guard vessel. Security info. provider did not plan for all events in threat assessment. 6 Implementation and Monitoring No security exercise conducted except ISPS on seismic vessel. It was not flagged/visualized that BIR was embarked. Community awareness campaign lapsed which increased the risk as this was one of the major mitigations for awareness. 7 Audit & Review Chase boats were audited/inspected, but their suitability as security guard vessels were not optimal, (limited selection). Security risk assessment not reviewed during the project.

7 Lessons learned To set review triggers in MOC of all key controls and mitigations. Review Risk assessment process at tender stage. Assign resources in a timely manner. Review security info providers for relevance / expertise in field of operations. Full security exercise to take place prior to operation when extra security measures are implemented. Security plan to include work instructions not only logistics. Operations Managers to be trained in security planning. For rest of project BIR flag and lights were fitted. Two BIR fast patrol vessels patrolled the survey area for the rest of the project.

8 Thanks for your attention?