Sakhalin II project

 

ARCHIVE DOCUMENT ONLY – NOT MAINTAINED

Background on Sakhalin:

Sakhalin’s waters contain some of the richest fisheries on the Pacific Rim with a salmon fishery unrivalled anywhere in Russia. It is also home to 25 marine mammal species, including 11 endangered species, most notably the critically endangered Western Pacific Gray Whale. Yet, the Sakhalin II project threatens these resources by extracting and transporting oil and gas in a marine environment with difficult climate conditions (including high seismic activity, heavy ice pack, frequent storms and fog). The island’s communities, as well as local and international NGOs, voiced concern that this risky project would threaten this environment as well as the regional fishing economy.

The project operator of Sakhalin II is Sakhalin Energy Investment Company (Sakhalin Energy, or SEIC), consisting of multinational corporations with Shell as the lead operator (55% shareholdings); Mitsui subsidiary (25%) and a Mitsubishi subsidiary (20%). 

Sakhalin II poses many threats. It:

  • Imperils the most critically endangered gray whale population in the world and 11 other endangered species;
  • Threatens some of the few healthy salmon runs left in the world with over 400 kilometers of proposed on-shore pipeline trenched directly through salmon streams;
  • Envisages the world’s largest liquid natural gas facility and immense associated greenhouse gas emissions;
  • Applies environmental standards far weaker than global best practices;
  • Skirts tax obligations by operating from a tax shelter in the Bahamas;
  • Promotes an unsustainable development path for Russia, which will receive billions of dollars less in revenues from the project than was anticipated; and
  • Weakens the regional local fishing economy through pollution impacts.
Whales & oil activities: click on the map above for a closer look (legend in Russian)

Despite repeated requests to Sakhalin Energy to improve its oil spill prevention and response system, the company has not taken any significant action to do so. Independent experts from Alaska and the Shetland Islands issued a report as early as 1999 — called “Sakhalin’s Oil: Doing It Right” — warning that the current oil spill prevention and response measures leave the coastlines of Sakhalin and Hokkaido vulnerable to a catastrophic spill. The report recommended 78 specific measures — including such basic recommendations as mandatory tanker routes, increased monitoring of tanker traffic, notifications to fishing vessels if a tanker is in the area, and increased spill response equipment and improved access to the shoreline where it would be deployed — but these have not been acted upon by Sakhalin Energy. As a result, Sakhalin and Hokkaido remain vulnerable to a catastrophic spill, made even more likely by increased tanker traffic foreseen under phase II of the project. As reported in today’s Wall Street Journal, “Spill response in Canada, Norway and Britain is generally far more comprehensive,” and in Alaska, following the disastrous Exxon Valdez spill, “state and U.S. officials ordered the industry to set up a massive spill-response system for Prince William Sound.” Sakhalin Energy’s lack of action to increase its oil spill prevention and response measures — despite repeated requests from the public to do so — further underscores its lack of attention to environmental standards.
 


The demands of NGOs to Sakhalin Energy (SEIC), Sakhalin II project operator:

  1. Gray whale protection:
    – Relocation of planned site of new PA-B platform far enough away from Western Gray Whales to ensure no negative impacts;
    – Avoidance of any seabed disturbance, any time of year, in whale feeding area;
     
  2. Pipeline impact on salmon: cross all salmon spawning streams via diagonal drilling underneath or bridges;
     
  3. Much more aggressive oil spill prevention measures, especially along the tanker routes out of Prigorodnoye;
     
  4. A commitment to zero waste discharge – 100 percent reinjection, including water-based muds; in particular minimization of impact on the rich Aniva Bay fisheries including cessation of all drilling waste dumping in Aniva Bay; 
     
  5. Better public participation practices, including the release of information and taking public concerns into serious consideration.

Unusual Suspects

Unearthing the shadowy world of Export Credit Agencies. This report examines some of the problems with ECAs, and includes case studies on Climate change, Asia Pulp and Paper, Ok Tedi Mine, Large Dams.

The Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: exporting an ‘environmental timebomb’

 

(August 19, 2005) The Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline  is the most controversial pipeline in the world. This doubious honour is due to its damaging geo-political, environmental and social impacts, its role in augmenting the power of corporate interests over national governments, and its alleged violation of the European human rights law and Turkey’s accession partnership, as well as allegations of corruption, imcompetence and malpractice. European export credit agencies are among the financiers of the BTC pipeline.

Export Credit Debt – How ECA support to corporations indebts the world’s poor

(June 10, 2008) This briefing note by Both ENDS and FERN highlights the fairly hidden role of Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) in the debt problems of many developing countries. It explains how export credit debt comes about, and clarifies how the cancellation of export credit debt is written off with Official Development Assistance (ODA) money.  It concludes with suggestions about how ECAs should change, in order to become coherent with international efforts to reduce poverty through sustainable development.

The EU – India FTA

(March 31, 2009) A new FERN funded report by Kavaljit Singh on the EU-India Free Trade Agreement with a strong focus on the banking sector. The report asks the question who benefits from FTAs and shows that opening up India for European banks can have negative impacts for India

From Rome to Lisbon: a guide to the EU and its role in developing trade and investment agreements

(August 23, 2009) Liberalising investments with the aim of opening markets appears to be incompatible with sustainable development of resource-based activities. FERN has therefore published a briefing note, “From Rome to Lisbon,” a guide to the EU’s investment strategy. The guide explores the EU’s controversial role in developing investment provisions in the free trade agreements it concludes with third countries.

Avoiding solutions: how export credit agencies help companies that continue to evade tax

(September 17, 2009) This briefing note shows the folly of G-20 plans to increase ECAs’ capacity without ensuring they bring in regulations aimed at halting their support for companies that take advantage of tax avoidance loopholes such as offshore financial centres. It ends with a series of recommendations for ensuring ECAs are held to government policies.

European ECA support to carbon intensive industries

(June 15, 2010) This research paper by Profundo, conducted for FERN analyses the involvement of all 21 ECAs of EU member countries in the financing of carbon-intensive industries during the period 2004-2009.

 

Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) default on its obligations to Export Credit Agencies

(June 11, 2012) Press release launched on the day that more than 30 European non governmental organisations (NGOs)  delivered a letter calling on governments not to fund a new pulp mill proposed by Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), one of the world’s most controversial pulp and paper companies. The plant is planned to be build in Sumatra, Indonesia where APP is estimated to have already pulped more than two million hectares of natural rainforests.

Export credit agencies and the International Law of Human Rights

This paper was prepared by ECA-Watch member, the Halifax Initiative, to inform the mandate of the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on business and human rights. The paper examines international human rights law and export credit agencies. It argues that under international law, specifically the principles of ‘state responsibility,’ the acts and omissions of export credit agencies are attributable to their states. States are therefore responsible under international law for the operations of their export credit agencies, including any ‘wrongful acts’ that these agencies may commit. The paper provides recommendations for home states in the area of export credit agencies and international human rights. January 2008