english
français
español
português
中国版
home
about banktrack
contact us
donate your bonus
|
banks
loading...
focus
loading...
members
loading...
dodgy deals
loading...
companies
loading...
Source: Amazon Watch
on record
last update: Jan 14, 2010
further resources
documents
links
location
contact
bank comment
printCamisea pipeline project - Peru ![]() sector
oil and gas, pipelines
description
Peru's Camisea gas project was designed to exploit an enormous gas field in the Amazonian region. It consists of 3 components:
The project is divided into two stages. The first stage of the original concessions (Camisea I) has already been completed and gas extraction for "Block 88" and the first pipeline across the Andes are operating. current status (Oct 21, 2008)
In mid-October 2008, the six-member Consorcio Camisea began production of natural gas at Pagoreni field on Block 56 in the Cuzco region. This is the second phase of the Camisea project (aka Camisea II) as it is adjacent to Block 88, which went into production in mid-2004 (Oil&Gas Journal ).
In June 2008, the consortium of Hunt Oil, Repsol, SK Energy and Marubeni signed $2.25 billion in loans to finance its $3.8 billion Peru LNG project (aka Camisea II). On August 7, 2007, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) adopted Precautionary Measure 102-07 requiring the Peruvian government to provide information about its efforts to protect the rights of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact that inhabit the Nahua, Kugapakori, and Nanti Territorial Reserve, affected by the Camisea Project.The IACHR called on Peru to provide information about the activities occurring in Block 88 and their possible impact on the life, personal integrity, health, environment, and culture of the communities within the Territorial Reserve. It also asked the Peruvian government to describe the actions taken to comply with the recommendations. companies involved
The consortium Transportadora de Gas del Peru (TGP) won the overall liquid and gas transportation and distribution concession for Camisea gas. TGP consists of Tecgas (fully owned by Techint, Argentina, operating member, 23,4%), Pluspetrol (Argentina, 22,2 %), Hunt Oil (United States, 22,2%), Sonatrach (Algeria, 11.1%), SK Corp (South Korea, 11,1%), SUEZ - Tractebel (8%), Graña y Montero (Peru, 2%). The production activities are led by a consortium of companies, composed of Pluspetrol (36%), Hunt Oil (36%), SK Corporation (18%), Tecpetrol (18%). The Peru Liquefied Natural Gas (Peru LNG) (aka Camisea II) project is the largest direct foreign investment in Peru's history. The current sponsor of the project (as of 30 June 2008) is a consortium of Hunt Oil (Project Leader, 50%), SK Energy (20%), Repsol YPF (Spain, 20%), Marubeni (Japan, 10%). dodgy aspects
environment
Peru's Camisea Gas Project is arguably one of the most damaging projects in the Amazon Basin. The project includes two pipelines of 700 km to the Peruvian coast, from an ecologically fragile area of the Amazon, over the Andes to the Pacific Coast. The gas field of Camisea I (Block 88 and 56) and pipeline are located in one of the world's most ecologically and socially fragile areas. A region of great biodiversity. Camisea II's proposed port and liquid gas fractionation plant site is in Playa Melchorita that is of particular concern because it is located in the buffer zone of the Paracas National Reserve where an accident or spill would have untold consequences.
human rights
Camisea is home to Machiguenga, Yine, Nanti, Nahua and possibly Kirineri indigenous people. Apart from environmental issues, the project also has been criticized by NGOs because of the negative impacts on the indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolations in the Nahua-Kugapakori Reserve, such as involuntary resettlement, the destruction of food and water supplies of local communities, and the exposure to illnesses for which the indigenous population has no immunological defenses. Disease and death of indigenous people Early explorations in the 1980s resulted in almost one-half of the Nahua people dying from influenza and whooping cough, to which they were not immune. Camisea contractors are still in relatively close contact with indigenous people, sustaining an inordinately high mortality rate within vulnerable local populations. Human rights violations Affected indigenous people were not considered in the decision-making of the construction of the project. Furthermore, indigenous communities were intimidated into allowing gas drilling on their lands. The cumulative impacts on vulnerable communities have been ignored and inadequately compensated. Specific concerns exist for the compliance with:
financial institutions involved
banks
Banco de Credito de Peru
Société Générale
- profile
national development banks
development banks (national and IFI's)
export credit agencies
Exim Bank of Korea
Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)
Servici Assicurativi del Commercio Estero (SACE)
multilateral development banks
Interamerican Development Bank (IDB)
International Finance Corporation (IFC)
The consortium of Hunt Oil, Repsol, SK Energy and Marubeni has signed $2.25 billion in loans to finance its $3.8 billion Peru LNG project. The financing includes a loan agreement with the Inter-American Development Bank (IABD) for $800 million split into two tranches, a $400 million A loan provided directly from the IADB, and a second $400 million B loan arranged by a syndicate of banks (Société Générale, BBVA, Calyon, Sumitomo, ING, Mizuho, and Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi). applicable policies
Equator Principles should apply to this project.
Camisea I has had tremendous social impacts on indigenous communities and detriment to the environment. Despite of these impacts the project has still received finance of private financiers. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Equator Principles have been breached. what must happen
Private financiers already involved should demand that Camisea II not proceed in its current form, unless both the plant and port are relocated to a less fragile area of the coast where they would pose less risk to the reserve's internationally recognized biodiversity, as well as to the local fishing and tourism industries. Public input and stringent environmental impact analysis should be integral parts of the relocation decision. |
Loading
print