WWF calls for suspension of oil and
gas project in Russian Far East
WWF
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.
|
