|
sakhalin resources
Sakhalin II Project Background
Sakhalin II is:
-
The biggest integrated oil and gas
project that includes the biggest LNG
processing facilities ever built;
-
The third largest Project Finance deal
ever undertaken, and by far the largest
ever undertaken in the oil and gas
sector;
-
Plagued with two billion dollars in
cost overruns.
Environmental Problems
The Sakhalin II project:
|
|
The Western Grey
Whale population off Sakhalin Island is
under threat by a the proposed
construction of a series of oil
pipelines, to be built by Shell and
financed by a number of UK financial
institutions. image: Sakhalin Environment
Watch
|
-
Threatens the world's most critically
endangered population of grey whale with
extinction through proposed off-shore
platforms adjacent to, and undersea
pipelines trenched directly through, the
whales' feeding habitat;
-
Threatens abundant wild salmon-bearing
streams (the Russian Far East has 1/3 of
the world's remaining wild salmon stocks)
by trenching pipelines directly through
stream beds and by burying pipelines
underground in this highly seismic
area;
-
Threatens wildlife and endangered
species through habitat destruction;
-
Threatens the fisheries-rich Aniva Bay
through the dumping of industrial wastes
and run-off;
-
Poses the potential of a catastrophic
oil spill not unlike the Exxon Valdez.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development and other public lenders have
informed Shell that they are not satisfied
with the environmental documentation that the
company had provided them, and that the
Sakhalin II Environmental Impact Assessment
is not fit for purpose.
NGO Demands
Russian and International Non-Governmental
Organizations have issued a broad set of
demands that Shell must meet before advancing
the project. These current concerns spring
from those larger demands.
Western Grey Whales
Only 100 Western Grey Whales remain, and
less than 20 are females capable of calving.
Yet, Shell proposes offshore platforms
adjacent to, and undersea pipelines directly
through the whales' primary feeding habitat.
NGOs insist that all proposed off-shore
facilities must be installed a sufficient
distant away from grey whale habitat to
ensure no negative impacts. An independent
panel of cetacean and related experts should
be established, and project construction
should not commence until the panel has
thoroughly reviewed the Sakhalin II proposal
and its revisions, and is convinced that the
project poses no potential impacts to the
Western Grey Whale.
Seismic Risks
The Sakhalin II project is in an area of
very high seismic risks, and earthquakes of
8.0 are not uncommon. Shell proposes to
compound this risk by burying pipelines,
potentially resulting in earthquake-induced
leaks that poison soils, watersheds, and
wildlife. Sakhalin II on-shore pipelines
should be built above ground in order to
quickly detect and respond to leaks, as was
done on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
Wild Salmon and Wildlife Impacts
Shell proposes to trench 800 kilometers of
on-shore pipelines across over 1000
watercourses, damaging delicate river beds of
wild-salmon bearing streams. Trenching
pipelines through wild salmon spawning beds
is to global best practices what bloodletting
is to modern medicine. Shell's on-shore
facilities will also destroy endangered
wildlife habitat including migratory birds
that are important to Japan . Shell should
abandon the retrograde practice of trenching
through wild salmon spawning river beds in
favour of appropriate modern-day aerial
stream crossings.
Fisheries Impact at Aniva Bay
During construction of the proposed LNG
terminal, one million cubic meters of
construction dredging materials will be
dumped into Aniva Bay and then over 500,000
cubic meters of wastewater will annually
enter the bay . This is in spite of the fact
that the fisheries-rich Aniva Bay currently
has the highest fisheries protection
designations and is a vital part of the
regional fisheries economy. Sakhalin II must
not dispose of wastes into Aniva Bay .
Environmental Social and Health Impact
Assessment Review
A number of questions have been raised by
international experts about the quality of
the Environmental Social and Health Impact
Assessment (ESHIA) for the Sakhalin II
project, as is required by the policies of
public and private banks considering
financing for the project. Shell should agree
to support the independent review of the
Sakhalin II ESHIA and its revisions by the
Dutch Commission for Environmental Impact
Assessments or independent panel of experts
before further construction continues..
Oil Spill Risks
Sakhalin II oil spill risks include
potential leaks and ruptures from off-shore
platforms, from hundreds of kilometers of
off-shore and on-shore pipelines, and from
potential tanker accidents in the congested
Aniva Bay and the La Perouse Straights. This
raises the potential for a catastrophic oil
spill not unlike that of the Exxon Valdez. In
addition to protection measures for pipelines
described above, Shell must assume full
liability for any oil spill.
Russian NGO Lawsuit
On March 1, 2004, a Moscow court agreed to
review a lawsuit filed by Russian
environmental NGOs. This lawsuit demands the
discontinuance of Sakhalin II project
activities that put at risk endangered
species including the Western Grey Whale,
Steller's sea eagle, and Sakhalin Taimen.
Shell should discontinue construction of
Sakhalin II project until this lawsuit is
concluded.
Visit
the
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and
Northern Ireland website
|
