Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for coming. Let me welcome you here. If I may start with some technical details. For those who need the translation boxes on your seats, please select Channel 1 for listening in English, or select Channel 2 to listen in Russian.

        I am Vadim Malkin, the Information Director of Russian National News Service Strana.Ru. I'll begin by introducing people with me today. First on my right Mr Sergei Yastrzhembsky, Assistant to President Putin. Mr Yastrzhembsky is responsible for co-ordinating the information about the Kursk lifting operation. Next , Vice-Admiral Mikhail Barskov, Deputy Commander in Chief of the Russian Navy. Dr Igor Spassky, on behalf of the Russian “Rubin” Marine Engineering Design Bureau, which designed the Kursk and almost all Russian nuclear submarines. Dr Spassky last week celebrated his anniversary and President Putin congratulated him on it - we join in his congratulations. Mr Franz van Seumeren, the President of Mammoet Transport Company, which is a partner of the Russian Navy in the project to lift the Kursk.

        So, this morning I will tell you a little about our special internet site www.kursk141.ru. Mr Yastrzhembsky will say a few words about the communication issues surrounding the lifting, and Vice-Admiral Barskov will update us on the details of theoperation. We will then answer all your questions.

        First of all the website. This site has been developed and supported by leading Russian media organisations, the major Russian television company ORT and leading Russian news agency Interfax. The Russian government are assisting us by ensuring that they will supply the site and the public through the site with their up-to-date information about the Kursk lifting operation. The site carries the latest news, so it's action news, as well as archive of materials on the tragedy in the Barents Sea a year ago. There are also details about the unique technical operation to raise this submarine. The site also offers the latest video footage, the opinions of experts and commentaries of specialists.

        So, our objective is to further provide the public with up-to-date information about the progress to lift the Kursk. Let me highlight that it is not for profit and not a governmental project. We receive no funds from the state; we are working on the project using our own resources.

        Importantly, we are also editorially independent. Our status as an official channel simply implies that the project has the confidence of the State. Our policy is to report as fact only information that has been checked out, to ensure it is reliable and accurate reporting of the events, and win the confidence of both the public and those with whom we report.

        Also, on our site, you will find a 3-D virtual model of the Kursk lifting operation, that has been created by Parallel graphics company software systems, especially for this project. With the help of this model, visitors to the site will be able to follow all the stages of the work to bring Kursk to the surface. The site will also be hosting regular Internet press conferences and briefings. We also provide a feedback system with our audiences. We also have a weather report and data on radiation in the area of the operation. Every visitor has the opportunity to put their questions to the representatives of the Russian authorities about details of the lifting of the sub.

        SERGEI YASTRZHEMBSKY:

        Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank all of you for coming here. We appreciate your interest and your presence here, we are considering this proof of your human solidarity. We, in Russia, don't forget that the Kursk disaster was a human tragedy which united last year the world in concern for the Russian crewmen and their families, and today, we don't forget that there is a partnership operation. Russia and European partners like Mammoet, Smit International and international divers are working together now in the Barents Sea to meet the tremendous challenge posed by this operation, and we appreciate it too.

        Our presence here, the fact that we are here today to promote this new website and answer your questions, I think is evidence of the Russian government's commitment to find the truth about Kursk. So far, we don't yet have all the answers about what happened last August. Our investigation is looking at all possibilities. We admit that we don’t have all the answers, but we are doing all we can - we are doing our best to get to the bottom of this. And, I can say, that when we do get all the information and the final answer for sure, we will share it, not only with the Russian people and Russian society, but with the rest of the world.

        I think that we have learned from the past. A year ago, for sure, it would have been better if we had supplied more information and more quickly, but please don't judge us very strictly; the situation was extremely confusing, extremely emotional and the facts were not always immediately available. But I think the Russian government, taking into consideration the tremendous interest of the world media in the event, has chosen the golden middle between openness and military secrets, in favour of openness. Already today, we have accredited about 1,000 journalists and in the beginning of September, we will open the International Press Centre in Murmansk. I must underline that there are no preferences in our work with journalists, and there are no limits, no barriers to accreditation. Even now, we could say that for the first time in the Russian Navy, foreign and Russian journalists have already had opportunities to visit Russian navy bases, and some absolutely hitherto closed enterprises of Russian military industrial and complex. This will go on.

        Closing my very short introduction, I would like to give you maybe one more example of our commitment to give you more and more information. Today, we will introduce and present here, just here, for the first time, two certificates - a Safety Certificate for the lifting preparation, and an Environmental Safety Certificate. The two main authors of these two documents are here, Mr Barskov and Mr Spassky. I am sure that they will give you more details about these very important documents.

        VICE-ADMIRAL BARSKOV:

        Ladies and gentlemen, I would like also to thank all of you at this press conference for taking part in the Kursk lifting operation, for your correct coverage of the situation around this serious technical endeavor. I believe we will be working with you in close contact throughout the operation. And I would like to stress again that at present, the Russian Navy has practically no secrets in conducting this operation. All information is provided to the media.

        Now, about current work being done on the submarine. As you all know, holes have being cut in the sub’s hull since July 16 for fixing special grips and other devices required for lifting the Kursk. So far, such holes have been cut in the outer hull over the 5th, 7th, 8th, and partially the 4th compartments. In the pressure hull, holes have been cut over the 5th, 7th, and 8th compartments. Before the cutting began, all technical difficulties involved had been estimated, but now they have been overcome and work is going on in keeping with the schedule.

        At present, the technology of cutting off the first compartment is being worked out in Kirkenes. In a few days, a barge will arrive at the Kursk accident site, and special equipment will be lowered to the bottom for cutting off the forward compartment. All this work is to be done on August 16 to 18. When it is over, holes are to be cut over the remaining compartments. As we planned before, and we spoke about this at previous press conferences, by September 15 everything should be ready for raising the submarine. This is, briefly, what I wanted to tell you about the work which has been done.

        As regards the environmental situation, environmental security experts from Holland took samples of the sea bed and water, and two days ago, they took samples from the 5th compartment. The samples will be dispatched to Holland to be examined. As of today, we have information from Holland, and also from our research institutes, that the radiological situation at the place of the accident is normal and corresponds to the natural radiation background.

        BORISENKO, ITAR-ôáSS:

        Can you tell us how the Kursk lifting operation is to be covered by the international media on the spot?

        SERGEI YASTRZHEMBSKY:

        I hope the international mass media will cover this lifting operation objectively, and I'm sure of it, because as we've seen just now there is enormous, huge interest and there is a big human touch in all the analysis about the lifting operation. But, I think the problem is not to forecast the international coverage of the operation. The main challenge for us organisers of this International Press Centre is to give more opportunities for the international press. We start, as I told you, in the beginning of September, and we will try to give, to supply all technical opportunities, I mean, the boats, the helicopters to enable the international press to visit the region of this operation. We will invite to Murmansk many Russian officials, top officials and newsmakers from the Russian government to maintain dialogue with the international press. But for sure, it will be a difficult job, because it's not possible to follow the operation itself. It’s impossible to see how it's going on, and it's one of the biggest problems for us. We will, I think, organise daily news opportunities with the navy chiefs responsible for the operation giving a report in the evenings. So, we're now thinking about all these details and I would like you to be satisfied in Murmansk with the conditions that we will supply.

        JULIAN RUSH, Channel 4 News Television:

        Could somebody please give us the latest information on the state of the investigation into the cause of the accident? And, would somebody please explain why you are leaving the compartment number one, the bow compartment, on the sea-bed, when it is the one part of the submarine which may well give you the most useful information as far as finding out the causes of the accident?

        MIKHAIL BARSKOV:

        I understand that here we are speaking about compartment No. 1. I’ve already answered such a question at a press conference and now I’ll simply repeat it once again.

        The technical project gives two reasons for slicing off the first compartment. The first reason. In view of the strongly mangled pressure hull of the submarine in the area of the first compartment, we have calculated that during the actual lifting, the first compartment could possibly break off from the sub’s hull.

        If this should happen, the dynamics of lifting the main hull of the submarine will be upset. This would be extremely undesirable and could result in such consequences that would have a negative impact on the entire submarine, in general. That is the first and main reason.

        The second reason - and this is something we do not conceal – we say that the first compartment may possibly still hold part of the explosives from the torpedo munitions. And that is why it would also be undesirable to have the lifting operation connected with the possibility of some kind of detonation of those munitions. These are the main reasons and this is stipulated quite stringently in the technical project.

        We plan to lift the first compartment in 2002 using the facilities of the Russian Navy. Should there be a need, we shall also call in the required technical specialists and technical equipment from foreign states.

        IGOR SPASSKY:

        No, I’ve nothing to add. Everything that has been said is correct. That’s our common technical stand. Yet, I would like to say that during that entire work being done this year, we shall, as far as it is possible, make additional inspections of accessible areas of the first compartment in order to get a general picture of what happened at the moment of the disaster.

        ANDREY OSTALSKY, BBC RUSSIAN SERVICE:

        There have lately appeared two versions (of the causes of the disaster) – of course, there were very many versions – but two of the more or less main versions have appeared lately…Two newspaper versions have appeared. Here in Britain, The Observer wrote that detonation of the fuel in the torpedoes might possibly have been the cause of the catastrophe.

        The second version was carried by Moskovskiye Novosti (Moscow News) in Russia. On the contrary, according to this version there could not have been any fuel detonation. It maintains that the disaster was the result of a collision with the Admiral Kuznetsov ship. How seriously do you take these two versions and have you examined such possibilities? Have you studied such causes?

        MIKHAIL BARSKOV:

        I’ll begin with the second version. The Kuznetsov aircraft carrier is undergoing repairs in the shipyards. Physically, it could not have been in the region of the Kursk. So much for that.

        All the versions were connected with the Pyotr Veliky (Peter the Great) – a heavy atomic-powered surface cruiser. And we’ve replied to this question a lot of times already. This was impossible both factually and physically. A collision with our combat ship (the Kursk) was simply physically impossible because the ships were outside the exercise area where the Kursk was located. There are certain naval rules and naval specialists all over the world know this. That’s what I have to say for the second part of your question.

        Now concerning fuel. Yes, thank you, we have become acquainted with the information that we received from our British colleagues. Well, with a delay of 55 years… there’s nothing wrong about that. Those events happened in 1955. Now, thank God, the Kursk (tragedy) has helped in the publication of these data this year.

        Right from the beginning, we started with the fuel version. The government (inquiry) commission does not reject this version. We are working on it. We have been working on it in all aspects – in labs, in natural tests, and so on. All the results will be published after the commission completes its work. These results will be made public.

        IGOR SPASSKY:

        I would say that out of all the three versions being examined by the government commission, the version we are talking about right now requires the largest volume of research. Well, the question is not exactly about the fuel itself, but about the oxidizing agent. Here we are speaking about highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide fluid. Many countries in the world have considerable experience in working with hydrogen peroxide, including what concerns accidents. And we are thoroughly examining this version – one of three – in combination with the fuel in the torpedo.

        I can tell you that we have made substantial advances in understanding all the physical and chemical processes that could arise, that may have arisen at the time of that accident – processes that triggered the subsequent detonation of the main torpedo arsenal, that led to the destruction.

        CATHERINE GOLDWATER:

        Catherine Goldwater, BBC NEWS. I just wonder if you could confirm for us whether the Kursk did use torpedoes that were using hydrogen peroxide?

        MIKHAIL BARSKOV:

        Our submarines are armed with such torpedoes and they have been used for scores of years. In that sense they are used but torpedoes fired during exercises carry no ammunition. That’s the sort of practice generally accepted by all countries operating submarines. I repeat that there were such torpedoes aboard the Kursk sub.

        MIKE COLLETT-WHITE, REUTERS:

        This is quite an unusual stance for the Russian government to take, being so aggressive in terms of the international media. Now, I'm sure you would be happy to admit that it's partly because of the public relations problems you had after the Kursk disaster. But, I mean, is this just going to be a one-off, because there were mistakes that you've admitted to making in terms of public relations after this accident? Or, are you going to begin to cover more and more events in Russia in the same sort of open manner? Because there is a lot of scepticism about this sort of particular operation.

        SERGEY YASTRZHEMBSKY:

        I can’t share the view that such events take place often. Fortunately, such disasters are not many. Although that one is a unique disaster, that was not the first accident in the history of the world navy: we had witnessed such accidents and so have the Americans.

        MIKHAIL BARSKOV:

        Yes, the world has seen three disasters involving nuclear-powered submarines that never made it to the surface: two American subs and the Kursk submarine.

        SERGEI YASTRZHEMBSKY:

        That’s why that event is so unique. I said in my brief opening remarks that we are anxious to learn lessons from the past, including lessons to be learnt from, shall we say, the information situation that took shape last year around various circumstances of the loss of the Kursk. In Russia too, the media were highly critical and in many ways that criticism was well deserved. The authorities did not make a full response information-wise. I hope the right conclusions have been drawn from that experience. Our presence in London and all previous work to cover the Kursk lifting operation indicates we are trying to draw conclusions from those lessons and work in a different mode. I think that is how we are going to behave until the end of the operation.

        TIM SHIPMAN, SUNDAY EXPRESS: You say that you have accepted the need to opt for openness over military secrets. Can you explain why no foreign divers are allowed actually to go down to the wreck?

        MIKHAIL BARSKOV:

        It is safe to say that, since the start of the first phase of the lifting operation, when we retrieved the crewmen’s bodies, foreign divers have been allowed to enter any places that we had agreed upon in the technical projects. In the divers’ work, the main principle is their safety. Considering this, their work and the places they are to enter in submarine’s compartments are determined. Your see, there is much wreckage in these compartments after the blast in the forward part, which makes it dangerous for the divers to be there. Therefore, I would like to stress it again that safety is the main criterion of the divers’ work in the submarine.

        ANASTASIA YEMELYNOVA, INTERFAX:

        Mr. Yastrzhembsky, the Western media, specifically in Norway, express concern over the environmental situation associated with raising the Kursk. It is alleged that the Russian side is unwilling to let members of the official environmental service of Norway to go to the place where the operation is going on. Will you comment on that, please?

        SERGEI YASTRZHEMBSKY:

        True, Norway watches the operation very closely. It is understandable – the Barents Sea, and northern seas in general for that matter, are a traditional fishing zone. Norway’s big economic interests lie in that zone. So it is only natural that Norway, like Russia, doesn’t want fishing to stop in those areas. This is the first reason. The second reason, environmental safety, is naturally associated with the first one. Norwegians are very sensitive about any issues related to environmental pollution. I think Norway is even more sensitive than others are, and we try to take this into account.

        Last year, a few people from Norway’s official environmental safety agency were present on board the Regalia. This time, we hear the same wish from Oslo. Before leaving for London I spoke to Mr. Kuroyedov, commander of the Russian Navy. As I see it, the Russian side, the navy, has no objections to the presence of official environmentalists from this national agency of Norway in the place of the Kursk accident, so that they could work as they did last year. My personal view is that people from the Norwegian Bellona environmental organization, too, should be invited there, so that any apprehensions that perhaps still exist are removed. But, as we have already said here, the Kursk salvage operation is of an international character. Our closest partner (the Mammoet company) is here, and all such decisions should be taken jointly. If Mammoet backs Russia’s stand and agrees that Norwegian environmentalists may be present, I think there will be no obstacles to that.

        MIKHAIL BARSKOV:

        I would like to add to that. We understand the Norwegian side pretty well. But today, two Norwegian ships, the Marjata being one of them, are constantly present in the accident place and Norwegian patrol aircraft are permanently over the area. I think they take measurements of the radiation background to be analyzed back home. Perhaps they just want official participation in this operation. Meanwhile, they are always present there and, I think, they are getting all required data.

        MARK HEDGCOE, BBC HORIZON:

        Academic Spassky and Admiral Barskov have mentioned hydrogen peroxide, the oxidant that the propellant used in torpedoes as being responsible for the first explosion, which ripped through the Kursk. I was very interested in Admiral Barskov's comment, his tangential reference to the sinking of a British submarine HMS Sidon 45 years ago. In tonight's Horizon we explore the sinking of the Sidon in some detail, and how it was, in fact, sunk by hydrogen peroxide escaping into the inside of a torpedo Can he confirm that he will be following-up the discoveries that are made in the programme? And, also the Board of Inquiry report into HMS Sidon that was made at the time?

        MIKHAIL BARSKOV:

        That’s a good question. All the more since the publication of these materials by the British side came only the day before yesterday. That’s the first thing, and I’ve already said this: 1955 is not the day before yesterday. But I would emphasise once again that we are thoroughly examining this version in lab conditions.

        In can tell you only one thing, namely that one must have a very correct understanding of what highly-concentrated hydrogen peroxide liquid is from the point of view of chemistry.

        Those who have studied chemistry know what it is. This fluid that we are talking about – if it is spilled on any components, nothing will happen with it and there will be no explosion. If it comes into contact with catalysts, it breaks down into components. But we must have very complex technical conditions for this to happen.

        So, the whole question hinges on how such conditions came about so that there would be such consequences. That’s what we are working on now, that’s what we are studying. This is not an off-the-cuff reply. This is a serious scientific study.

        IGOR SPASSKY:

        Well, I would say there’s not much that could be added here. But the British information, true in very scanty terms, speaks about the process that occurred aboard the British sub that led to such a sorrowful result. But this was the result of the energy power from the physical process that is determined by the components that drive the torpedo.

        SERGEI BRULYEV, RTR:

        From the experience of covering the operation over the past year, especially in Norway, there is a noticeable absence, not so much in coordination as in mutual understanding between the Russian Navy, and in particular, with the Norwegians, and the NATO elements, in general.

        There seems to be an absence of conducting joint work. Well, just one example. Say a Norwegian aircraft with journalists on board flies up to the region of the sunken Kursk, a Russian Naval ship asks the pilot to make radio contact on such and such a frequency that simply does not exist in western-made communications equipment.

        To say nothing of the problems that come up in translating. There are complaints by Norwegians that periodically, they are unable to help in rescue operations connected with non-military vessels simply because they are unknown to each other. For instance, Russian orders for helicopters to land are different from western orders.

        In this sense, my question is sooner addressed to Mikhail Barskov. What are our naval people planning to do to coordinate work simply in such critical situations of this kind when this calls for mutual cooperation between Russian and NATO military structures?

        MIKHAIL BARSKOV:

        That’s a very good question. There is a whole programme called Rescue at Sea at NATO headquarters in Brussels since 1994. Russian specialists are participating in this.The programme is precisely taking up the questions you have just raised: radio frequencies, rescue equipment and so on.

        What I want to say is the following: there are differences not only between Russian and NATO technical equipment, as you have just mentioned. On the whole, the working group that has tackled this programme has found that there are also a lot of differences between the naval forces of the NATO members as regards their rescue facilities, say between Sweden and the U.K., the USA and so on.

        So within the framework of this programme, they are now trying to unify or standardise those facilities. So much for that. That is quite a complicated question. As you may know, joint sea and land rescue exercises have been regularly conducted within the framework of that programme. They were held in the coastal waters of Norway and in the Baltic Sea. The Russian side also participated in them, true, not in all of the exercises.

        I think that this programme is based on a very good life-saving platform. We are participating in it. And I think that what happened to the Kursk will probably allow us to feel more confident that the efforts within the framework of this programme will be stepped up substantially.

        STEFAN WAGSTYL, FINANCIAL TIMES:

        I appreciate you're still investigating the possible causes, but based on what you know already, have there been any changes in practice in the Russian Navy in the operation of submarines?

        MIKHAIL BARSKOV:

        Of course there have been changes. I think any state would do that. We immediately responded to what had happened, in order to prevent tragedies like that in future. There have been many decisions of that sort; above all on technical, design and organisational matters. Different time limits are set for their implementation, depending on possibilities. Some decisions take a few years and others were made instantly. Our response was immediate.

        RIA NOVOSTI:

        I would like to ask a couple of questions about the cost of the operation, though it has been spoken about already. First, can it happen that the cost may increase? And second, will provisions for such spending be made in the federal budget?

        MR. VAN SEUMEREN:

        I would like to answer this question, but that is a little bit difficult for me. Of course, it's more or less a question for our client, but I think that as Mr Spassky told the last press conference in Brussels, the total cost will be around and about one hundred and thirty million dollars, with sixty-five million dollars for the operation itself and costs from Mammoet, and the other part are costs that the divisions have on this project. Until now, okay, there is a situation that everything, more or less, is going in a way that we stay round-and-about our budget. There are some main issues we have to discuss, but we don't do it now. We will do it in a later phase, because the first thing we want to do now is to concentrate on the job, and do our job as well as possible.

        RIA- NOVOSTY:

        Excuse me, just to be exact, it was one hundred and thirty million US dollars the total budget, and thirty-five million …

        MR VAN SEUMEREN:

        Sixty-five, sixty-five.

        RIA - NOVOSTY:

        Sixty-five already for your company?

        MR VAN SEUMEREN:

        Yes, of the one hundred and thirty million total cost, sixty-five million is for the operation, from our side.

        MIKHAIL BARSKOV:

        I would like to elaborate on that question. The $65 million are the funds that our government has appropriated today for the lifting operation. But after that operation is carried out, there is still the second part of the job connected with the Kursk. More specifically, this is, first of all, making a thorough study of everything. Second, there is the utilisation of the given submarine. And third, there is the lifting of the first compartment – something that we are working on now.

        The funds for doing this job will come from next year’s budget. And according to our estimates, this sum will come to approximately as much as has been allocated for this year, i.e., approximately $65 million. The overall sum will come to $130 million. That was explained by Academic Spassky at the previous press conference.

        IGOR SPASSKY:

        There is some additional information that I think could be helpful, and the media can assist in this particular case. Of course, I think you know that a Kursk Fund has been opened. It was opened here in Europe, in Brussels. The Fund has two vice presidents: Mr. Barskov and Mr. Spassky. The Fund is starting a big campaign in search of possibilities to raise additional money for this job. And here we are strongly counting on the media for help.

        Indeed, it is not so easy for our country to shoulder such a heavy financial burden. And that is why our country would be extremely grateful to everyone that can help in any way to find other sources for raising this sum.

        ends