Pacific Oil Pipeline Update - August 2005

Russian citizens speak out against proposed terminal site

On August 15 the citizens of Primorsky Krai expressed their opinion about the Pacific Pipeline Project at public hearings. The majority of the hearing participants support the project, but strongly oppose the proposed oil terminal location on the Amur Bay.

Two separate hearings were held in Primorsky Krai; one in the Krai's capital Vladivostok, and one in Slavyanka, the capital of the Khasan district where Russia's oil pipeline monopolist Transneft proposes to build the terminal. A large majority of the 200 participants in Vladivostok spoke out against siting the terminal at Perevoznaya on the Amur Bay opposite Vladivostok. Not a single person of the more than 100 participants in Slavyanka spoke out in favour of siting the terminal in their district. The results of the hearings will be taken into account in the 2nd stage of the official Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project. The project can not be implemented without a favourable EIA result.

Court ruled that the pipeline project EIA is invalid
Recently a court in Khabarovsk ruled that the first stage of the official Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is invalid due to many irregularities and violations of Russian laws during the EIA process. As a result the decree by Prime Minister Fradkov to build the pipeline from Taishet to Perevoznaya has lost its legal grounds. The same is true for the hearings. The NGOs therefore do not accept the events as official hearings, but see them as an unofficial exchange of opinions.

Presentations against the Perevoznaya-option
A large and diverse group spoke out against Perevoznaya at the Vladivostok hearing. Presentations were made by environmental NGOs, the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Science, two members of the local parliament, the Krai's fishery committee and several individual citizens.

In Slavyanka many people addressed the hearing participants, but not a single person said anything in support of the proposed terminal at Perevoznaya. The mayor of Slavyanka supported his citizens and made a very convincing speech. A local scientist showed a secret, illegal agreement that he had laid his hands on. This agreement between Primorsky Krai governor Darkin and Transneft to build the terminal at Perevoznaya was signed in 2002, long before alternative terminal sites were compared and evaluated. The document proves that alternative sites were never given any serious consideration.

Arguments against Perevoznaya
The participants at the hearings pointed out that Perevoznaya on the Amur Bay is the worst possible spot, because it is large, open and shallow. The terminal is to be built 2 km offshore where it will be exposed from all sides to high waves and frequent storms. Tankers will need to navigate through a string of islands to reach the terminal. As a result the risks of accidents resulting in spills are up to 17 times higher than if an alternative site is selected near Nakhodka, the region's largest port. The circumstances in the Amur Bay would make it impossible to control oil spills and a spill would do much more damage than at other sites.

Fifteen percent of Russia's endangered species occur only in the vicinity of the proposed terminal site. The site is in the habitat of the last 30 Amur leopards and near protected areas, including Kedrovaya Pad, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Vladivostok, the region's largest city is opposite the terminal site. The most popular tourists resorts and sand beaches in the Russian Far East, visited by ten thousands of tourists annually, and Russia's only marine reserve, are also located nearby on the same bay.

Presentations in support of Perevoznaya
At the Vladivostok hearing, the mayor of the municipality where the proposed terminal site is located spoke out in favour of siting it at Perezovnaya. The terminal would bring jobs to his village he argued. This is not a convincing argument in favour of Perevoznaya, because the terminal will bring jobs irrespective of the selected site. One staff member of a local NGO also supported the proposed site. He put forward that Transneft would need to make considerable compensation payments, because of the substantial damage to the rich local biodiversity. This money could be used to improve the ecological situation.

Efforts to manipulate the hearing results
Hearings take place along the whole pipeline route. The hearing procedures are not announced in advance and questions about procedures are usually not answered. This makes it possible to manipulate the results by selecting procedures that are most favourable for Transneft. For example; at the end of a hearing near Irkutsk (that went favourable for Transneft) a protocol text sumarizing the results was put to a vote. In contrast, at the Vladivostok hearing a vote to choose between two poposed protocol text (one suggested by the chairman and one suggested by participants) was not allowed. Instead of allowing a vote, the chairman invited participants who wanted to sign his protocol to come forward, the rest of the participants he ordered to leave!

The Vladivostok hearing started at 10.00 AM on a Monday, and as a result many people could not participate because they had to work. A large group of uniformed guards at the entrance created a grim atmosphere. The participants had to identify themselves. This had not been announced and was not required at the previous hearing, a year earlier. The chairman Vladimir Simonenok, Head of the Energy Department of the Primorsky Krai administration, introduced the few speakers supporting Perevoznaya warmly and in detail. It was clear that the administration and Transneft had arranged these presentations.

It is surprising that no one supported Transneft at the hearing in the Khasan district, in spite of the considerable efforts and energy that the company spent to influence public opinion in the district. It promised to clean the Khasan beaches, build roads and provide jobs. Transneft even opened office in the building of the district administration. In a room next to the head of the administration, people were offered jobs at the terminal in exchange for support at the hearing.

In the weeks before the hearings governor Darkin and Transneft had private meetings with representatives of the NGOs and scientific community opposing a terminal on the Amur Bay. Darkin appeared surprised and worried by the information that the local scientists provided about Perevoznaya. He claimed that he had not known that more suitable sites exist. Darkin blamed a Transneft representative for not bringing the risks of Perevoznaya to his attention. He stated he did not object against selecting an alternative location. He even offered to present the arguments against Perevoznaya to the government organisations responsible for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project.

Transneft president Vainshtok took similar steps. He invited WWF to his office in Moscow and told that he had fired the head of the Transneft projecting organisation responsible for selecting Perevoznaya. He held this person responsible for the incorrect information that Transneft distributed on Perevoznaya (such as an information sheet describing Perevoznaya as a deep, secluded bay, instead of as a shallow, slightly curved coast which it is in reality). Vainshtok suggested continued consultations with WWF and scientists to discuss possible changes in the project design that would diminish the environmental impact.

The hearings (and the intensified pro-Perevoznaya propaganda in the local media in the week before the hearings) prove that the Primorsky Krai administration and Transneft have in reality not changed their position and still want to build the terminal at Perevoznaya. The dialogue with WWF and scientists is probably no more than a smokescreen and an effort to weaken the opposition. Fortunately, the majority of the environmental community did not fall into the trap.

Confusing endings to the hearings
Both hearings ended in turmoil. The chairmen read out a protocol text that was supposed to describe the results of the hearing. The texts did not mention that the participants oppose a terminal on the Amur Bay! The same thing happened at the previous hearing in Vladivostok in July 2004 and the local NGOs had learned from this experience. They had selected a spokesman (Sergei Bereznuk of Phoenix Fund) and had prepared an alternative protocol text. However, the chairman of the Vladivostok hearing refused to put the two versions to a vote. In Khasan a vote took place and the result could not have been clearer: nobody supported the chairman's protocol. Instead, almost everybody supported the protocol that had been read out by Sergei Bereznuk. However, the chairmen at both hearings refused to accept the protocols prepared by the NGOs as the official hearing result. Finally, at both hearings, the majority of participants signed documents stating that they disagreed with the protocol suggested by the chairmen and agreed with the protocol prepared by the NGOs.

Lake Baikal
At both hearings Transneft hang a map of the proposed pipeline route on one of the walls. The map showed an illegal route passing Lake Baikal at less than one mile. However, the official route approved by the responsible Russian authorities passes Lake Baikal at 80 km, outside the lake's watershed.

President Putin accusing environmentalists
President Putin recently criticised Russian environmentalists for creating obstacles to projects essential for Russia's economic development. He accused the NGOs involved of being financed by "competitors". President Putin used the Pacific Pipeline Project as his main example.

The criticism is not justified. The vast majority of NGOs do not oppose the Pacific Pipeline project, but only the proposed choice of terminal site. Many alternative sites are more suitable, from economic and social perspectives as well as from an ecological perspective. The NGOs have substantiated their opinion with sound scientific data. In doing so, they have acted in Russia's best long-term interests.

Switching to a different terminal site may cause a delay in the project's implementation. However, NGOs and scientists have pointed at the risks of Perevoznaya from the start. A delay would have been avoided if Transneft and the responsible authorities had abided by the law and based their selection on a sound comparative study of alternative terminal sites (as the law requires). It is unfair to blame NGOs and scientists for a possible delay that is in fact the result of the shortcomings of Transneft and the Russian authorities.

The accusation that "competitors" pay scientists and NGOs to oppose the proposed terminal site has no grounds whatsoever. The only parties that could potentially gain from the selection of a different terminal site are the owners of the existing Nakhodka oil ports. The main owner is Rosneft, like Transneft, a state-owned company. Neither Rosneft nor any other company has provided support for the opposition against a terminal at Perevoznaya.

Possible involvement of British Petroleum
BBC reported that TNK-BP is interested in assisting in the building the terminal. The oil firm, 50% owned by British Petroleum, has confirmed sending a low-key delegation on a fact-finding mission to Primorsky Krai in June 2005. A TNK-BP spokesman told the BBC that he was aware of the controversy concerning the terminal location.

Amur Leopard and Tiger Alliance (ALTA)

For more information please contact on the terminal issue:

Phoenix Fund : phoenix@mail.primorye.ru

Every little contribution helps wildlife and remember 100% of your donation will go in full to the project - thank you!

You can also help by becoming a member of DSWF. Click here for more information

top of page