A Western Gray Whale near an oil drilling platform operated by Shell, Mitsubishi, and Matsui near Sakhalin Island. Photo by Greenpeace Russia
description
The Sakhalin II project in the Russian Far East is said by project sponsors to be the largest integrated oil and gas project in the world. The project involves three offshore oil and gas platforms and subsea pipelines to shore. The oil and gas will then be transported via 800 km of onshore pipelines to what will be one of the world’s largest natural gas liquefaction and export terminal and oil export facilities at Prigorodnoye, in the south of
Sakhalin.
what must happen
The project should not receive funding from any bank claiming to apply the equator principles or equivalent standards. Any such endorsement would send a signal that lower standards are acceptable for the sector and for other operators on Sakhalin Island and elswhere.
SEIC has installed its new oil platform adjacent to the only known
feeding ground of the approximately 120 critically endangered Western
Gray Whales. After initially planning to build a subsea
oil pipeline directly through the whale’s feeding area, SEIC
re-directed the offshore pipeline just adjacent to the feeding area,
continuing to threaten the population with its far-reaching impact.
Noise, collisions, and sediment disturbance put the whales at risk
during construction. The whales will face an ongoing risk of an oil
spill in this harsh environment. The sea around the platform is covered
by ice for 6 months of the year, seriously limiting the ability of SEIC
to respond to an oil spill. Despite unreasonably optimistic promises
by SEIC, there is no proven effective way to respond to oil spills in
ice conditions.
Shell has not followed the precautionary
approach, refusing to deviate from its construction schedule to wait
for the completion of scientific analysis and it refuses to follow much
of the advice from a panel of whale experts hosted by the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature. As a result, the decision of
whether the oil platform base should be constructed at all in the area
of the critically endangered Western Gray Whale became moot issues for
the panel. The whale scientists also made recommendations on noise
limits, which SEIC has ignored.
SEIC is constructing over
1000 pipeline river crossings, which has led to damage to salmon
spawning rivers. SEIC has failed to construct 800 kilometers of
parallel on-shore oil and gas pipelines simultaneously to reduce
impact. Ineffective erosion control, unapproved stream diversion and
sedimentation of rivers have damaged hundreds of salmon spawning rivers
and tributaries. SEIC has revised its river crossings strategy but has
failed to comply with the requirements of this strategy on a high
percentage of sensitive rivers. Meanwhile, SEIC's pipeline design has
failed to account for geohazards and river migration features of
Sakhalin that will result in risks extending throughout the life of the
project. NGO monitoring in October and December 2007 continued to find
non-compliance with the required river-crossing and soil erosion
management plans, raising concerns over the integrity of the pipeline
system, especially in areas prone to seismic zones and landslides.
SEIC is
constructing the world’s largest liquid natural gas plant in the south
of the island in Aniva Bay. In so doing, SEIC dredged the bay to deepen
the access for tankers, and dumped the dredged materials in the middle
of this fisheries-rich bay, refusing to dump the material in a less
environmentally harmful location further out to sea. Fisheries have
been disrupted, and SEIC did not accurately predict the impact on the
bay ecosystem. SEIC did not adequately consult on the construction of
a jetty in Aniva as required by Russian EIA law. The local shellfish
beds continue to suffer from damage from dumping of dredged material.
The vast majority of environmental problems and EP compliance failures occurred while SEIC was led by Royal Dutch Shell.
In
October, 2007, SEIC announced that a new consultant report for
potential lenders gives the project a "clean bill of health." However,
this report actually reveals amongst other things systematic and
chronic violations of policies and standards of potential international
lenders and, by extension, the Equator Principles. An NGO critique of
this report is available in the documents section below.
The project is subject to various investigations by the Russian Authorities. The Russian Ministry of Natural Resources has found violations relating to protected forest being felled, water code violations associated with river and other damage, and risks of landslides. These findings confirm the problems documented by NGOs over recent years.
The Russian Audit Office has investigated the huge cost increases on the project (from $10 billion to $ 22 billion so far), which decrease and delay the revenue stream to the Russian government under the Production Sharing Agreement. The project is now over 90% built, and has caused damage to salmon spawning rivers and exposed endangered gray whales to excessive noise. The fisheries in Aniva have suffered and indigenous people and local communities have not been adequately consulted. Any investor will inherit the problems that have been built-in to the project, and cannot ignore the numerous breaches of the Equator Principles that have already occurred. Going forward the project suffers from inadequate measures to respond to oil spills in ice conditions. There are no proven response techniques that can give response all year round. Despite its remote location, the project has received significant coverage in the international media of the environmental and social problems and presents a significant reputational risk. Any finance institution involved in the project risks being held responsible for extinction, along with other long-term damage to the environment and local economy.
corporate loan: $ 358 million (June 2008) Participation in loan of $1.6 billion provided by a consortium of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho Corporate Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and BNP Paribas, in addition to $3.7 billion loan provided by JBIC
corporate loan: Participation in US$1,4bn provided by consortium of BNP Paribas, BTM, Mizuho, and SMBC (October 8, 2009) source: Project Finance International
corporate loan: $ 125 million (June 2008) Participation in loan of $1.6 billion provided by a consortium of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho Corporate Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and BNP Paribas, in addition to $3.7 billion loan provided by JBIC
corporate loan: Participation in US$1,4bn provided by consortium of BNP Paribas, BTM, Mizuho, and SMBC (October 8, 2009) source: Project Finance International
corporate loan: $ 100 million (June 2008) Participation in loan of $1.6 billion provided by a consortium of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho Corporate Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and BNP Paribas, in addition to $3.7 billion loan provided by JBIC
corporate loan: $ 358 million (June 2008) Participation in loan of $1.6 billion provided by a consortium of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho Corporate Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and BNP Paribas, in addition to $3.7 billion loan provided by JBIC
corporate loan: Participation in US$1,4bn provided by consortium of BNP Paribas, BTM, Mizuho, and SMBC (October 8, 2009) source: Project Finance International
corporate loan: $ 2 billion (April 2007) Loan to finance Gazprom from an international Banking syndicate, of which ABN Amro was the lead arranger. This part of ABN Amro is now part of Royal Bank of Scotland and Société Générale
corporate loan: $ 2 billion (April 2007) Loan to finance Gazprom from an international Banking syndicate, of which ABN Amro was the lead arranger. This part of ABN Amro is now part of Royal Bank of Scotland and Société Générale. (See Royal Bank of Scotland )
corporate loan: $ 300 million (June 2008) Participation in loan of $1.6 billion provided by a consortium of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho Corporate Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and BNP Paribas, in addition to $3.7 billion loan provided by JBIC
corporate loan: $ 358 million (June 2008) Participation in loan of $1.6 billion provided by a consortium of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho Corporate Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and BNP Paribas, in addition to $3.7 billion loan provided by JBIC
corporate loan: Participation in US$1,4bn provided by consortium of BNP Paribas, BTM, Mizuho, and SMBC (October 8, 2009) source: Project Finance International
Protest against ABN investing in Sakhalin II Apr 26, 2006
Sakhalin action at Credit Suisse Zuerich Apr 30, 2005
Sakhalin II oil and gas project Dec 08, 2006
Sakhalin-II pipelines Oct 20, 2009
videos
2011 Goldman Prize for Asia: Dmitry Lisitsyn, Russia
Apr 13, 2011 - Dmitry Lisitsyn fought to protect Sakhalin Island's critical endangered ecosystems while also demanding safety measures from one of the world's largest petroleum development projects. Learn more at http://www.goldmanprize.org/2011/asia.
This video is narrated by actor and environmentalist Robert Redford.
The Goldman Environmental Prize is the world's largest award for grassroots environmentalists.
Apr 19, 2007 - Several other videos about Sakhalin oil project are available at the same site.
Sakhalins Black Tears - Part 1
Apr 19, 2007 - Video report on the Sakhalin oil extraction project. With support from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the oil consortium plans to expand the drilling and build two pipelines in one of the most seismic regions in the world. Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Shell's development will affect the world's last 100 or so Western Pacific grey whales. It will destroy the key salmon fishing area off the island by dumping one million tons of waste into the sea and threaten the livelihood of tens of thousands of fishermen. Furthermore the Sakhalinians have to live with a permanent threat that a large oil spill will destroy their environment. The future of Sakhalin lies in the hands of the international financial institutions and multinational companies.