21 Apr 2006 - London,
UK – The European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) should not fund Shell's proposed
construction of the world's largest hydrocarbon
project in Russia's Far East without improved
environmental mitigation measures, says WWF. The
EBRD’s consultation on the whether to fund the
Sakhalin II oil and gas project closes today.
A recent review by some of the
world’s leading whale experts concluded that Shell
has provided no convincing evidence that the project
is not harming the 100 remaining western gray
whales. With only two months to go before offshore
pipeline construction starts, the scientists reviewed
the proposed mitigation measures and concluded
that they could not be confident there would be
no significant impact on the whales.
"Shell must stop this project
now and assess the condition of the whale population
this summer before they proceed with any more
construction," said WWF-UK's oil expert James
Leaton. "Currently, Shell is ignoring the
science and the EBRD cannot guarantee the future
of the whales, so they should not finance the
project.”
“There is no room for error
with this critically endangered whale population,"
he added. "Shell has had years to develop
adequate measures, yet they keep coming up short
and ploughing on with their construction agenda.
There is a full schedule of work planned for this
summer, including some of the noisiest construction
activities.”
At the recent meeting in Vancouver,
Canada, scientists confirmed that just one extra
female death per year would be likely to result
in their extinction. WWF is also concerned that
more "skinny" or emaciated whales were
seen last year than any year since 2001 as it
suggests disruption of feeding.
There are now several areas
where the whale scientists’ recommendations have
been ignored. Shell installed a platform base
last summer in dense fog during the peak whale
season, despite the fact that noise limit discussions
have only just been concluded with the experts.
They also chose to ignore suggestions to reduce
vessel speeds to minimise collision risk.
Previously, in an initial report
in February 2005, the scientists called for a
precautionary approach – meaning the suspension
of construction until conclusive research had
been carried out. Shell pushed ahead with their
construction programme while commissioning new
research. However, in their latest report the
information on the monitoring of noise and whales
provided by Shell from last summer was described
as “uninformative” for this purpose. Shell’s 2005
noise data suggests that the whales were exposed
to over 130dB for periods exceeding an hour, which
the scientists consider unacceptable. The panel
of scientists concluded that any claim there had
been no impact was “unfounded”.
The consultation period included
public meetings to comply with EBRD policy. It
was disappointing that public comments were not
taken more seriously. Many concerned stakeholders
labelled it a cosmetic exercise designed to provide
a justification as to why the project should be
approved by the EBRD.
The EBRD appeared to have made
up their mind that everything is fine with the
project and the scope of the consultation was
restricted. It feels as if the EBRD is being sucked
in by Shell’s propaganda when there are significant
gaps in the project. For example, the official
oil spill recovery plan has not been presented
for review.
"How can there be a proper consultation if
this crucial document is not publicly available
to assess," said Leaton.
END NOTES:
• Shell is the majority shareholder
(55%) in Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd,
the company building Sakhalin II, with smaller
partners including Mitsui & Co Ltd, (25%)
and Mitsubishi Corp. (20%).
• With around 800km of pipeline
crossing 1,000 watercourses and the construction
of a drilling platform and a liquefied natural
gas plant, Sakhalin II is currently the largest
hydrocarbon construction project in the world.
However, it has been bedevilled by cost overruns
with a total cost now doubled to over US$20 billion.
Since it has started construction it has broken
a number of EBRD environmental and social policies.
