Lake Baikal
Transneft is Digging a Grave for BaikalOn May 13th Sergey Gerasimovich Shapkhaev, the director of the Buryat Regional Union for Baikal (Ulan Ude) and lecturer at the Department of Ecology and Safety at Eastern Siberia State Technical University (EESTU), participated in a press conference in Irkutsk. The press conference was devoted to changes made to the route of the "Eastern Siberia - Pacific Ocean" oil pipeline and took place in the office of Irkutsk Oblast NGO, Baikal Environmental Wave. In April residents of Severobaikalsk and the surrounding areas first reported the presence of numerous employees from surveying organizations and companies from Irkutsk, Novosibirsk, Ulan-Ude, and other cities investigating a new route for the oil pipeline. This information became the cause of much indignation among environmental and nongovernmental organizations. The initiator of the project, Transneft, had been planning an entirely different route (about 80 kilometers further to the north) and this was the project given approval by a State Environmental Impact Assessment in December of 2004. Despite the fact that, while preparing the project, "Transneft" violated just about every rule possible: over the course of a series of public hearings in 2004 the company refused to provide complete information about the project to nearly all interested non-governmental organizations. Document for the citizens' environmental impact assessment were provided to only one organization, "Social Ecology," registered in Moscow, and which clearly states in its charter that it works to "defend the environmental rights of Muscovites." (italics added) It turns out that all the other Russians were denied their environmental rights. Now Transneft is planning to relocate the route directly to the shore of Baikal, in violation of Russian law, and flaunting even the doubtful decision announced by Russian Federation administration on December 31st to approve the project. This, obviously, would make the defense of the lake technically impossible in the event of an oil spill. Sergey Shapkhaev recounted how he was personally convinced during a visit to Severobaikalsk that a large volume of survey work for the new route was being carried out at rapid pace (for example, drilling and geomagnetic work). First of all, all the hotels and hostels in the city are full of new arrivals - topographers, geologists, and other specialists. Sergey Shapkhaev was able to speak with some of them personally, and they told him that the project had been changed twice, each time bringing the route closer to the lake. Other scientists related how they were under significant pressure to complete work which usually takes one to one and a half years to due by the book, in one or two months. A part of the work was ongoing during the winter as well, when nearly a meter of snow covers the north of Baikal; these conditions can seriously affect the quality of the surveys. Secondly, several swaths of forest had been cut through the taiga, which indicating the approval of the local forestry supervisory agency. However, on May 11th Sergey Shapkhaev received a letter from the manager of the Administration of the Russian Federal Nature Oversight Service (ROSPRIRODNADZORA) of the Republic of Buryatia, K.G. Dremov. Mr. Dremov informed him that the Administration had carried out an investigation into the legal violations committed during the survey work. The individual responsible for issuing the permit for cutting timber had been fined and charged for the violation of rules regulating the release of lumber, and an injunction for the halt of survey work carried out without the approval of a State Environmental Impact Assessment had been issued. The Forestry Agency of the Republic of Buryatia had also been sent a statement about the suspension of the permits for survey work on the territory of three forestry areas issued until all of the potential pipeline routes along the BAM received approval from the State Environmental Impact Assessment. And third, Sergey Shapkhaev was able to access maps and blueprints of the new route. Additionally, local villagers have run into people in camouflage carrying out surveying and other preparatory work. It appears that an entirely new project is being pursued, which not only threatens the entire northern section of Baikal, but also the safety of freight along the railway; the distance from the route to the tracks barely clears the minimum demanded by building regulations. Representatives from "Baikal Environmental Wave," Viktor Kuznetsov (coordinator of the "Citizens' Control" program) and Marina Rikhvanova (coordinator of the "Baikal is Worth More Than Oil" campaign) also took part in the press conference. Victor Kuznetsov stated that the policy being followed by Transneft is an unbroken chain of legal violations, and threatens not only Baikal, but also the environment of the Russian Far East. The corporation is a monopolist in the planning, construction, and operation of oil pipelines, and despite having become a joint-stock company long ago, claims that its interests coincide with those of the government. For this reason Transneft supposedly acts on behalf of the government. However, in reality Transneft is defending the interests of groups of stockholders. Regardless, the company's resources are enormous. Attempts to pursue charges against Transneft are not admitted to court (or drag out into cumbersome and lengthy hearings) and any action against the company runs up against powerful resistance. The pipeline route, in its current state, misses all the major oil fields in Eastern Siberia, passing through regions significantly further to the south. The Yurubcheno-Tokhomskoe oil field in Krasnoyarsk krai, Verkhnechonskoe oil field in Irkutsk oblast, and a number of fields in the south of Yakutia, all of which should replace exhausted fields in Western Siberia, are rather far away from the "project of the century." But the worst aspect of the project is that the route passes through the Severomuiskii mountain range. This is area is subject to 9 and 10 point (on the Richter scale) earthquakes, and was also host to the 11 point Muiskoe earthquake in 1957, which shook a region spanning two million square kilometers, and lead to the movement of parts of the Udokan range to the East, and the Adamarkistoi depression to the West! It is important to note, that previous to this natural disaster, this was considered to be an area free of seismic activity. If the corporation did agree to shift the route nearer to the oil fields, it would not only avoid the Lake Baikal watershed and this region of heightened seismic activity, but also become far more profitable from an economic viewpoint (it would however become somewhat more expensive as demonstrated in an article by the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of the Sciences, "The Eastern pipeline corridor: the comparative economic effectiveness of different variants"). Apparently the investment in the Transneft variant should run at 9.29 billion dollars, but the other routes, passing further to the north, closer to the oil fields, and missing the Republic of Buryatia entirely, are projected at 10.5 billion dollars. On the other hand, net profits are estimated at 10.5 billion dollars (Transneft), 22.2 and 22.8 billion dollars (alternate routes). The relative risks of shipping oil east by rail and pumping it through a pipeline became a separate topic. Yes, Sergey Shapkhaev did agree that if one considers statistics, railroad accidents occur more frequently, but their scale is on average one hundred times smaller than pipeline mishaps. If sixty cistern cars happened to flip over (until now on Baikal there hasn't been a single case) 3600 tons of oil would be spilled. One accident on the pipeline, according to the current rules and standards of Transneft, would spill anywhere from 500 to 8300 tons of oil, with near total certainty that they would end up in Baikal. Moreover, any accident of the oil pipeline would create a threat to the drinking water sources in settlements both in Buryatia and in Irkutsk oblast and also cause enormous harm to all living things, especially Baikal's fisheries. The suspension of oil shipments along the BAM also means there will be a significant decline in the overall volume of shipments and a likely increase in tariffs, which, in the opinion of Sergey Shapkhaev, will be a blow to all clients of the railroad. An extremely important point in the battle against the widespread legal violations is the position of local administrations. The county adminidtrations in Irkutsk oblast (and not without the assistance of BEW) have already stopped registering announcements of environmental assessments carried out by pseudo-environmental organizations based in Moscow. However, authorities at oblast level are answering environmentalists' questions rather evasively. For example, deputy governor, Larisa Zabrodskaya, said that she knows nothing about plans to change the pipeline route. The government in the Republic of Buryatia, according to Sergey Shapkhaev, is supporting the project, but without much enthusiasm. Buryat Republic president Potapov spoke out in favor of the project in general terms only in April. Yet in comparison with the pressure exerted by local authorities in support of the Yukos project in the recent past (to the South of Baikal through Tunkinsky national park) - these statements are simply "little flowers." The director of the World Heritage Center at UNESCO, Francesco Bardarin, in response to a joint letter from Russian environmental organizations stated that a report from the Russian administration about alternative oil and gas pipeline routes would be examined at the 29th session of the UNESCO Committee (June-July 2005). The introduction of the letter to the World Heritage Committee on Natural Heritage notes that the results of the State Environmental Impact Assessment, which were presented to UNESCO, were negative and requested that future plans did not impinge on Natural World Heritage sites. The Committee expressed its concern about the possible damage, and considered it necessary to point out the necessity of completing an environmental assessment in accordance with international standards, and requested that the administration of the Russian Federation took measures to exclude all threats to the Natural World Heritage site at Lake Baikal. P.S. After the press conference at Baikal Environmental Wave, attended by eleven different media companies, the television company "Gorod" ("City") carried out an interactive poll about the construction of an oil pipeline to the north of Lake Baikal during the evening news broadcast. The following question was posed to viewers: Do you agree or disagree with the construction of an oil pipeline along the route being proposed by Transneft? 56 people answered "yes", 2000 people answered "no", and another 100 chose to "leave it to the experts." Judge for yourself. |
A journey by train on the banks of baikal, May 2006 The Peace and Majestic Silence of Baikal Turned into "The Industry of Tourism and Recreation" Transneft is Digging a Grave for Baikal The Battle for Baikal: Before its too Late! (from old English site) |