Vremya MN
30 August 2000
[translation for personal use only]
Article by Marina Sokolovskaya:  "After Us, the Deluge" 

The oil companies are destroying Russian nature 

The 1st International Practical Conference, SRP-2000 (agreement on 
developing Russian oil and gas deposits with the participation of foreign 
investors who receive their share of the extracted products) is to take 
place at the beginning of September in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.   Vladimir 
Putin and Bill Richardson, U.S. Secretary of Energy, are expected to 
attend. 

Much has been said in the last few years about the fact that the SRP 
[production-sharing agreement] mechanism is not developed in Russia, and 
foreign companies therefore do not want to work in our country.   The 
country is losing billions of dollars as a result. 

But the developments of new oil and gas deposits and the increase in the 
volumes of oil transport by sea may turn out to have unforeseen 
ecological consequences for Russia. 

There are four principal projects today -- they are already extracting 
oil on the Sakhalin shelf and transporting it through the Sea of Okhotsk 
to Japan and the United States.   Next on the list is the development of 
deposits in the Barents and Karsk seas.   Great hopes are linked with the 
export of oil supplied by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (KTK) through 
the Black Sea, and by the Baltic Pipeline System, correspondingly through 
the Baltic.   The plans are to transport 30-60 million tonnes of oil a 
year along Russia's Black, Okhotsk and North seas. 

In the euphoria of big money expectations, however, an extremely 
important circumstance is being overlooked.   Not a single country is 
insured against oil spills, even in planned operations.   Neither the 
level of personnel training nor the newest technology provide full 
guarantees.   It is even calculated that 0.02 to 0.03 percent of the oil 
transported in the world yearly ends up in the sea during extraction and 
transport.   This is not counting major accidents.   For example, 30,000 
tonnes of oil were spilled on the shore of France last year as the result 
of an accident to the tanker Erik.   And 40,000 tonnes, in the 
catastrophe of the American tanker, Exxon Valdiz, in Alaska in 1989.   
The damage that time was $5 billion.   In striving to secure themselves 
to the maximum, many Western countries have passed laws in which all 
procedures connected with the extraction and transport of oil are 
prescribed in detail. 

Russia has no such laws. 

A Love for Bankruptcies 

The extraction of oil in accordance with the Sakhalin-2 project began 
last summer on the Northeastern shelf of Sakhalin.   The Sakhalin Energy 
Investment Company Limited (SEIK) was the operator of the project.   We 
cannot help but say a few words about the prehistory of the development 
of this deposit. 

In 1992, a government commission chaired by Vladimir Danilov-Danilyan 
summed up the results of the announced competition of proposals of 
foreign firms to develop the oil and gas resources of the Sakhalin shelf. 
  Leading world companies took part in the tender, including Shell and 
Exxon.   But the winner of the competition was a consortium consisting of 
the MacDermott, Mitsui and Marathon Oil corporations (MMM).   The 
government commission gave as the reasoning for its choice the fact that 
the consortium "has most completely fulfilled the requirements of the 
Russian side, has experience in developing deposits under Arctic 
conditions and possesses sufficient financial potentials to put the 
project into effect."   It is surprising that the company's financial 
condition did not put the members of the commission on guard.   At the 
moment of completing this "successful transaction," MacDermott had losses 
of $400 million, and Marathon -- of $70 million. 

MacDermott has been going to ruin for several years.   Marathon is 
leaving the project right behind it.   But joining in as a partner there 
appears, not even a "daughter," but a "granddaughter" company -- 
Shell-SEIK, registered in the Bahamas by three British nationals.   Its 
charter capital is $100 million. 

Economical Foreigners 

One of the most important conditions of the Sakhalin-2 tender that was 
won was, as entered in the decision of the commission, the "satisfaction 
of the needs of Russia's Far Eastern region for gas and oil."   Supplies 
of gas on the domestic market were to have begun in 1995.   But SEIK is 
retracting its promises to build a reliable ecological security system, 
and is beginning to extract oil.   According to Vitaliy Gorokhov, 
corresponding member of the RAYeN [Russian Academy of Natural Sciences] 
and expert of the Ekoyuris Institute of Ecological-Legal problems, the 
company was completing its building and equipping at the same time that 
the fish were spawning.   Some 523,000 cubic meters of earth were moved 
when the Molikpak platform was installed.   The materials of the state 
ecological expert appraisal indicated that this could harm or disturb the 
migratory route of salmon.   SEIK, however, was little worried about the 
fate of the salmon.   All the ecologists' reprimands were ignored. 

The next ecological problem was the dumping of drilling liquids, 
interstitial waters and drill cuttings (sludge) into the sea.   In 
accordance with world technology, these burials are carried out at 
special refuse sites.   But this would have required substantial 
expenditures from the developers or the deposits.   SEIK and ENL decided 
to economize.   Knowing that Russian water legislation prohibits dumping 
waters of this sort into the sea, they lobbied for their interests as 
much as they could.   And they got their way.   In the summer of last 
year, Sergey Stepashin, who was at that time chairman of the government, 
signed an order which permitted wastes to be dumped into all the seas of 
the Far East.   In so doing, he failed to take into consideration the 
fact that it is in the Sea of Okhotsk that 65 percent of the Russian sea 
products are caught.   It was then that public ecology organizations 
complained to the Supreme Court, which recognized the order as illegal. 

The total extraction of oil for the Sakhalin-1 and Sakhalin-2 projects 
should be 30 million tonnes.   The plans are for the oil to go along 
pipelines to the south of the peninsula, to the Prigorodnoye settlement.  
 Moreover, they intend to lay the company's oil pipeline through spawning 
rivers, earthquake-prone sections and forests.   According to Vitaliy 
Gorokhov, projects of this sort are in operation in the world, for 
example, in Alaska.   But there the companies are supplied with 
legislation within a strict framework and are forced to protect nature to 
the maximum.   The pipelines are therefore removed from the ground and 
installed on special supports in earthquake-prone places, places where 
fish spawn and even where deer roam.   Naturally, this sort of pipeline 
installation is extremely expensive. 

Sakhalinrybvoda has repeatedly stated that the route would cross 463 
streams and 65 very important salmon rivers, which provide up to 73 
percent of the humpback salmon.   And in 1993, the State Ecological 
Expert Appraisal evaluated the Sakhalin-2 project and gave the decision 
that "developing oil and gas deposits on the Sakhalin shelf, with a 
surface pipeline laid to the south of the island, was fraught with 
irreversible consequences for the fish industry, which is a priority 
sector in the oblast's economy....   Not enough attention was paid to the 
methods and periods of the pipelines' passing through numerous rivers and 
to a guarantee that the spawning grounds and the purity of the water 
would be preserved."   This had no effect on the foreigners, however.   
The plans to build the pipeline may soon begin to be realized. 

A Cabal Agreement 

It is, essentially, extremely difficult to stop the damage being done by 
Western entrepreneurs.   First of all, because there is powerful support 
within the country for the activity of the oil companies.   The State 
Ecological Expert Appraisal gave a negative decision on the Sakhalin-1 
project.   According to Russian legislation, the work was to be 
discontinued.   But it goes on as if nothing had happened.   Moreover, 
the Russian government concurred with a cabal agreement in accordance 
with which all the debatable questions (including ecological) are removed 
from Russian jurisprudence.   The agreements will be interpreted in 
accordance with English law (the Sakhalin-1 project) and in accordance 
with the legislation of the state of New York (Sakhalin-2).   In the 
opinion of Vitaliy Gorokhov, with the appearance of the arbitration 
investigation, the Russian side is virtually doomed to lose the case.   
Last year, for example, the action of the Sakhalin Oblast State Ecology 
brought against the defendant -- the company, Esson Oil and Gas Limited 
-- concerning compensation for the damage done to the natural 
environment, was dismissed because the company demanded that the case be 
transferred to the arbitration court of the Stockholm Chamber of 
Commerce.   At that time, the mass death of fish, within a range of from 
907.2 to 1,111.6 tonnes, was recorded by the SAKHNIRO Institute.   But 
neither the environmental protection prosecutor's office nor the oblast 
committee to protect the environment could take the matter to court.   
The companies, in response to all the claims, handed over taunting 
dispatches, the sense of which boiled down to the fact that the 
entrepreneurs would not be responsible for stupid fish, which eat God 
knows what. 

Vera Mishchenko, president of the Ekoyuris Institute of Ecological-Legal 
Problems, told us that it is difficult to find the truth when the 
consistent squandering of natural resources goes on in the country.   
Licenses for an activity, particularly in the sphere of oil extraction, 
are issued to anyone you like.   Two years ago, ecologists, accusing 
state officials of what was going on in Sakhalin, sent materials to the 
General Prosecutor.   There however, in the best Soviet tradition, they 
sent the papers on to the Sakhalin prosecutor's office, which justly 
replied that it was not competent to monitor the activity of state 
officials at the federal level. 

_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist

Reply via email to