Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts under ‘Russia’

Sakhalin Energy’s 2011 Sales Rose by $1 Billion, Vedomosti Says

By Yuliya Fedorinova – Feb 8, 2012 4:53 AM GMT

Sakhalin Energy, Russia’s liquefied natural-gas producer, increased its revenue by $1 billion last year after raising prices, Vedomosti reported today, citing Chief Executive Officer Andrey Galayev.

The project may break even as soon as this spring rather than in 2013 or 2014, as initially planned, Galayev told the Moscow-based newspaper.

OAO Gazprom has a 50 percent stake in Sakhalin Energy.

To contact the reporter on this story: Yuliya Fedorinova in Moscow at yfedorinova@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Viljoen at jviljoen@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAKED EMAILS LOST SHELL BILLIONS ON SAKHALIN-2

Shell $22 billion Sakhalin-2 Project devastated by insider leaks: 10 July 2007

Sakhalin Pep Talk From ‘Old Blood and Guts’: By Max Delany, Moscow Times 9/6/07

(Extract: Greer’s memo, which was leaked to an anti-Shell web site, Royaldutchshellplc.com, appears to show the pressure that he and his fellow managers have been under, as it talks of “the risk of becoming a team that doesn’t want to fight and lacks confidence in its own ability.”)

David Greer, Deputy CEO of Sakhalin Energy resigns in disgrace: 21 June 2007

Prison terms for corruption in oil and gas contracts

Photo shows Sakhalin II, Russia’s first liquified natural gas project. Courtesy of Gazprom.

Hi John,

I case you haven’t seen it, looks like there has been a corruption conviction involving Sakhalin II.  Although the story below does not mention Sakhalin II by its exact name, the story says the project “is one of the largest integrated oil and gas projects in the world and involves the exploration and development of several different oil and gas fields in the Sea of Okhotsk off Sakhalin Island (part of the Russian Federation).”

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/45943

That is how Sakhalin Energy describes the project, so I am sure its Sakhalin II!

Prison terms for corruption in oil and gas contracts

31 January 2012

Prison sentences have been handed down in a case where corrupt payments were obtained for passing on confidential procurement information to bidding suppliers.  The contracts related to a series of high-value oil and gas engineering projects between 2001 and 2009 in Iran, Egypt, Russia, Singapore and Abu Dhabi

The sentences are:

  • Andrew Rybak (d.o.b. 28/03/56) of Newbury, Berkshire.  Five years’ imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently.
  • Ronald Saunders (d.o.b. 01/02/47) of Hook, Hampshire.  Three years and six months’ imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently,
  • Philip Hammond (d.o.b. 11/06/54) of Brussels, Belgium.  Three years’ imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently.
  • Barry Smith (d.o.b. 19/04/40) of Hindhead, Hampshire.  Twelve months’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of 18 months and 300 hours of unpaid work.

In addition Rybak and Hammond were also disqualified from acting as company directors for a period of ten years.

Confiscation actions are to be undertaken against the first three defendants.

The case, codenamed Operation Navigator, was tried at Southwark Crown Court, where the defendants were found guilty on 25 January.

In passing sentence today, HHJ Deborah Taylor, addressing Rybak, Saunders, Hammond and Smith said, All this was done without the slightest regard for the interests of others.  Your activities in connection with these conspiracies had little, if anything, to do with the interests of those engaged with the project, but were parasitic, leeching money for your benefit.

Commenting on the sentences, SFO Director Richard Alderman said, “Demanding backhanders in exchange for confidential and advantageous information saps business and is completely unacceptable to society.  Hopefully these sentences will ring out the message loud and clear that the criminal justice system will do all it can to combat wrong-doing like this.”

Outline

The investigation began in April 2008 as a joint operation between the Serious Fraud Office and the City of London Police.  It was triggered by allegations relating to a project in Singapore, but it soon became apparent to the investigators that a number of other projects were also tainted by corruption.

The confidential information corruptly supplied to bidders was held by companies that undertook procurement for the projects.  Saunders and Rybak, who were engaged as agency workers by the procurement companies, abused their access to this information.  They indicated to suppliers who were bidding for the contracts that information could be made available if they agreed to pay for it.  Disguised as “consultancy services”, the illicit payments were shared out amongst the co-conspirators.

The contracts related to these projects (indicating defendants involved);

a)      Styrene Monomer Project, Iran.  (Rybak, Saunders and Hammond)

b)      QASR Gas Gathering Project, Egypt.  (Rybak and Saunders)

c)      Sakhalin Island Project, Russian Federation. (Rybak, Saunders and Hammond)

d)      Singapore Parallel Train Project.  (Rybak and Hammond)

e)      Hydrogen Power Project, Abu Dhabi.  (Rybak, Saunders, Hammond and Smith)

Summaries of the contracts and assistance provided by the procurement companies to the SFO are contained in our press release of 25 January.

Notes for editors:

  1. Charging of defendants.  See press release 22 October 2010.
  2. The fifth defendant, Robert Storey, was tried in relation to the Abu Dhabi project only but the jury could reach no verdict.
  3. Another suspect (a UK national) is resident in the Philippines and it has not been possible, thus far, to bring him to trial in the UK.
  4. The Serious Fraud Office is a government department responsible for investigating and prosecuting serious and complex fraud.  The SFO is headed by the Director (Richard Alderman) who exercises powers under the superintendence of the Attorney General. These powers are derived from the Criminal Justice Act (1987).

Serious Fraud Office, Elm House, 10-16 Elm Street, London, WC1X 0BJ
Press Office tel: 020 7239 7000 7004 or mobile: 0796 655 8903
Main switchboard tel: 020 7239 7272
SFO Confidential hotline for whistleblowers 020 729 7388
press.office@sfo.gsi.gov.uk – or via – www.sfo.gov.uk

EXTRACT FROM THE SFO PRESS RELEASE

Sakhalin Island Project. This is one of the largest integrated oil and gas projects in the world and involves the exploration and development of several different oil and gas fields in the Sea of Okhotsk off Sakhalin Island (part of the Russian Federation). Fluor Ltd, a company in Farnborough, managed the procurement process for this project. A number of separate packages were investigated in detail, including: air compressors, oil pumps, generator sets, gas turbines, equipment to treat fuel gas, oily water treatment and large bore pipes. These packages were worth over £17 million. Saunders and another man were engaged as contractors by Fluor Limited between 2006 and 2008. Again, Rybak and Hammond received confidential information from the insiders which they sold on to bidding companies. Some payments of around £357,000 and US$229,000, were made from successful bidders, which were then distributed between the defendants.

Sakhalin-2 News

Gazprom Expansion of Sakhalin-2 LNG Plant May Cost $7 Billion

January 30, 2012, 5:20 AM EST

By Jake Rudnitsky

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) — OAO Gazprom and its partners in the Sakhalin-2 project may decide on expanding their liquefied natural gas plant this year, to add supplies by 2018, said Andrey Galaev, the venture’s chief executive officer.

An expansion may cost $5 billion to $7 billion based on preliminary estimates, Galaev told reporters today in Moscow. Depending on changes in oil and gas prices, the construction cost may drop as low as $3 billion or climb as high as $8 billion, he said.

A decision should be made this year to reach a window for supplies in 2016 to 2018, before global LNG production capacity rises, according to Galaev.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc holds 27.5 percent of the project after agreeing to cede control of Russia’s first LNG plant to Gazprom in 2006. Mitsui & Co. has 12.5 percent and Mitsubishi Corp. owns 10 percent.

–Editors: Torrey Clark, Stephen Cunningham

To contact the reporter on this story: Jake Rudnitsky in Moscow at jrudnitsky@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Voss at sev@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Putin call to ‘cut Gazprom stake’

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has called for the government to reduce its stake in state-owned companies, including gas monopoly Gazprom, according to a report.

Steve Marshall and newswires 30 January 2012 13:41 GMT

Meanwhile, Russian Energy Minister Sergey Shmatko said all outstanding issues with production sharing contracts signed with companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell on Sakhalin projects in the country’s far east have now been resolved.

The PSAs were signed in the 1990s but Russia subsequently backpedalled as it felt the terms were too favourable to foreign players and sought to renationalize its oil and gas sector.

Shell was forced to relinquish control of the Sakhalin 2 project to state-owned Gazprom in 2007, while Russian officials have threatened to revoke ExxonMobil’s operator status on Sakhalin 1 over the past two years.

FULL ARTICLE

Published January 30, 2012 Dow Jones Newswires

MOSCOW –  Russian Energy Minister Sergey Shmatko said Monday that all major issues have been resolved regarding production sharing agreements, or PSAs, that were signed in the 1990s with companies such as ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) and Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA).

“The issue of PSAs has been settled for good,” Shmatko told government officials and company executives at a meeting in Moscow.

Russia invited international oil majors such as ExxonMobil, Shell and Total SA (TOT) to secure lucrative PSAs in the 1990s, but later turned sour on those partnerships, which it felt were too favorable to the oil companies.

Some minor issues regarding higher efficiency and development of infrastructure still remain, Shmatko said.

“But today, we have no fundamental problems,” he said.

ExxonMobil and Shell signed PSAs in the 1990s to become operators of large projects off Russia’s Pacific coast, but pressure mounted on both during the past decade as Russia sought to renationalize its oil and gas industry. In 2007, Shell was forced to cede control of its Sakhalin-2 project to state-run gas giant OAO Gazprom (GAZP.RS).

Over the last two years, Russian officials have voiced threats to revoke ExxonMobil’s operator status at the Sakhalin-1 project, and have on some occasions delayed approving ExxonMobil’s budget.

Under PSAs, companies shoulder all investment costs but can recover them from the sale of oil or gas before having to share revenue with the government.

Besides Sakhalin-1 and Sakhalin-2, Total operates a smaller PSA project, the Kharyaga field in northern Russia.

Shmatko said Monday that no new PSAs are under consideration. At the end of 2010, he said favored a “renaissance” in PSAs to attract foreign investments, as Russia seeks to open new difficult production regions.

Copyright © 2012 Dow Jones Newswires

Oil industry sees China winning, West losing from Iran sanctions

Peter Voser, chief executive at Royal Dutch Shell, said his company might take some time before suspending purchases…

By Dmitry Zhdannikov

DAVOS, Switzerland | Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:33am EST

(Reuters) – As the European Union prepares to ban Iranian oil and the United States turns the screw on payments, oil executives and policymakers say China and Russia stand to gain the most and Western oil firms and consumers may emerge the biggest losers.

Iran will continue to sell much the same volume of oil – 2.6 million barrels per day or around 3 percent of world supply – but almost all of it will flow to China, they reason. And being pretty much Iran’s only remaining customer, Beijing will be able to negotiate a much reduced price.

The EU will ban Iranian oil from July. The United States plans sanctions on Iran’s central bank and possibly its shipping firm. European headquartered oil firms such as France’s Total and Royal Dutch Shell have already abandoned Iranian oil purchases or are in the process of doing so.

Japan and South Korea have signaled they may reduce purchases of Iranian oil to comply with U.S. sanctions designed to put pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program.

That leaves a growing number of buyers competing for alternative supplies. Inevitably attention has turned to Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest exporter and the only country that can quickly increase oil output and help the West avoid a price spike that would deal a severe economic blow.

The IMF said this week that crude oil prices could rise 20 to 30 percent if Iran were to retaliate by halting its oil exports altogether. Oil industry executives meeting in Davos said energy markets can afford to lose half of Iran’s 2.6 million barrels per day. That would be roughly equivalent to supplies lost during Libya’s civil war in 2011. They are confident Saudi Arabia will fill the gap.

“What we say is that oil is fungible. Iranian oil will still find its way into the market, to Asian markets, China and possibly at a lower price,” a top Saudi source told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

“But if let’s say 50 percent of Iranian oil is lost, we have spare capacity, we have the capacity to replace it as Libya has shown,” he added.

The chief of Saudi state oil monopoly Saudi Aramco, Khalid al-Falih, moved from one bilateral meeting to the next during the World Economic Forum this week. Over the past month or so the kingdom has received requests for additional oil from the European Union, Japan and South Korea. The European Union and Turkey buy almost a third of Iranian oil exports with the rest going to China, Japan, South Korea, India and South Africa.

“As a regular conversation we talked about increased supplies. Saudi Aramco is always positive,” Jun Arai, the head of Japan’s Showa Shell, told Reuters.

Russia too stands to gain from Western sanctions on Iran. The world’s biggest oil producer is well positioned to raise its market share in Europe, despite misgivings among some Europeans about relying too heavily on Russia for oil and gas. Payment disputes between Russia and neighboring Ukraine have in the past threatened transit gas supplies to Europe.

“I’m sure Moscow is watching the situation with big interest,” said José Sergio Gabrielli, chief executive of Brazil’s Petrobras. Arkady Dvorkovich, the Kremlin’s top economic aide, concurred that Russia stood to benefit from sanctions that were guaranteed to keep oil prices at least at current levels around $100 a barrel by his reckoning.

Showa Shell buys 100,000 barrels per day from Iran under a deal that expires in March and like other firms would be exposed to U.S. sanctions if not given a waiver under the latest ban on dealing with Iran’s central bank. “We are waiting for guidance from the government,” said Arai.

For Total the guidance has been clearer. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been one of the main advocates of tough sanctions. “We have already stopped (buying from Iran),” said Total’s chief Christopher de Margerie. The firm was previously lifting 80,000-100,000 barrels per day (bpd) from Iran.

Peter Voser, chief executive at Royal Dutch Shell, said his company might take some time before suspending purchases, which market sources estimate at 100,000 barrels per day.

“We are a European company and therefore we are affected by the sanctions and we will obviously oblige and implement the sanctions. I need to study all the details in order to see how it goes forward,” he said.

Apart from Total and Shell, Europe’s biggest buyers of Iranian oil are Italian, Spanish and Greek companies.

CHEAP OIL

China has so far refrained from buying more Iranian crude but the perception in the industry and among diplomats is that the world’s No.2 oil consumer will find it hard to resist buying unsold Iranian oil at a knockdown price.

“I think (the Iranian) oil will go somewhere else … Iran may give a discount to make it easier and quicker but nothing will change,” said De Margerie.

Robert Hormats, U.S. under secretary for economy, energy and agriculture, could not say with certainty that sanctions would reduce Iran’s oil exports but he predicted more pain for the Iranian economy.

“You cannot predict what they (Iran) will do and how much they will discount their oil. But it will certainly cause more and more discomfort to the Iranian economy,” he said, adding that China too had an interest in a ‘constructive outcome’.

“No one has an interest in Iran continuing its non-peaceful nuclear program,” he said. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes – electricity generation and medical equipment.

To maximize the impact of the sanctions, the U.S. will apply waivers very “selectively” and “responsibly,” Hormats said. In addition, the U.S. administration is talking to Congress about extending sanctions to Iran’s shipping fleet although the discussion is at an early stage, he added.

(Reporting by Dmitry Zhdannikov; editing by Janet McBride)

SOURCE ARTICLE

Gazprom and Shell successfully developing cooperation


Royal Dutch Shell CEO Peter Voser (left) and Gazprom Chairman, Alexey Miller

Sunday, 22 Jan 2012

The Gazprom headquarters hosted a working meeting between Mr Alexey Miller Chairman of the Company Management Committee and Mr Peter Voser Chief Executive Officer of Royal Dutch Shell.

The parties discussed the issues of bilateral cooperation as part of the Sakhalin II project.

They also addressed the joint efforts of Gazprom and Shell within the Protocol on Strategic Global Cooperation and highlighted the companies’ success in the global energy market.

SOURCE STEELGURU ARTICLE

Royal Dutch Shell and Iran Oil

By John Donovan: 12 January 2012

The front page lead story published by the Financial Times newspaper today reports that European refiners have begun to sever links with Iran ahead of an EU meeting, which could impose a full oil embargo on the Iranian regime.

(A version of the article is also published on ft.com)

Iran is the world’s third-largest oil exporter.

Tensions and oil prices are heightened by the regimes threat to close the Strait of Hormuz.

The article reports that according to Argus Media, Royal Dutch Shell is the biggest supplier of Iranian crude.

As could be expected, Shell has been extremely sensitive about purchasing oil from the fanatical Iranian regime supplying road side bombs, which have maimed and killed many US and British soldiers, but has continued to do so. With Shell, money wins out over mere moral considerations.

On 28 October 2010, Shell CFO Simon Henry came clean after press reports on the subject and admitted that Shell has continued to trade with Iran:

“Simon Henry, Shell’s top financial official, said his company was still taking delivery of Iranian crude oil under the terms of its existing contracts with the Islamic republic.” (extract from UPI article)

The following month, November 2010, Reuters published an article which stated:

“Companies are still finding ways to buy Iranian oil. Royal Dutch Shell and some Italian and Spanish refiners buy Iranian barrels with finance coming from Chinese and Italian banks…”

Shell has in fact continued to buy oil from the Iranian regime for many years and and because of the obvious sensitivity, has on occasion used subterfuge to disguise shipping movements.

I discovered just how sensitive the issue is after sending an email in March 2007 to Bill O’Reilly at Fox News, under the innocuous subject heading “Shell’s treachery in Iran“.

As a result of making an application to Shell under the Data Protection Act, we discovered from Shell internal communications the company was compelled to supply, that my email had sent Shell into a panic on both sides of the Atlantic. This was out of concern that if the story was taken up by Fox News, it could result in a US boycott of Shell gasoline.

The internal emails also revealed anxiety over information being leaked to us:

“They are a continued source of leaks from inside Shell – if you read their on line blog you will see a lot of insider material”.

A media statement was drafted on a contingency basis.

As can be seen from the covering message, it contained the usual spin and was founded on deception:

“Greetings all – The lawyers are happy with the following response statement no changes from the draft I sent you yesterday). As discussed with xxxxxxx, we have phrased this as coming from Shell in the US, and have aimed to distance you as much as possible from what is essentially a dispute originating in the UK. Let’s hope there is no follow up and we don’t have to use anything.”

The Shell internal emails focused on our Iran initiative with Fox News, but also mentioned a surge in our activities relating to Sakhalin 2 and Shell North Sea “TFA” safety culture, as exposed by Bill Campbell, the former Group HSE Auditor of Shell International.

That same month, Shell set up an aggressive team to combat our activities. This was followed by an attempt to close down this website and the setting up of a related global spying operation targeting my family and all Shell employees, in conjunction with a US cyber intelligence unit partly staffed and funded by the FBI.

All in response to an entirely non commercial website publishing the truth about the dark side of Royal Dutch Shell, including its relationship with the Iranian regime.

RELATED

Royal Dutch Shell Iranian treachery

Shell CEO Says the Potential for Shale Gas in Europe Is Limited

By John Buckley

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) — Royal Dutch Shell Plc chief Peter Voser said the potential for shale gas development in Europe is limited by the region’s regulations and its dense population.

Shell expects expansion in shale and tight gas — which is locked in rock that’s difficult and expensive to break — in North America, China and Australia, and has signed a deal in Ukraine, the chief executive officer said in an interview in Shell Venster, the company’s Dutch-language personnel magazine.

“We are looking further at possibilities in Europe, but the development of shale gas there will be limited as a result of regulation, legislation, high population density and the challenge of obtaining permits,” he said in the interview.

Shell, based in The Hague, applied for permits to drill for oil in Arctic regions this year and next, he said. “We have all the permits we need but we have a long way to go before we start drilling. The emphasis is on Alaska and to a certain extent Greenland, and in Russia some possibilities may arise.”

The company said in September it agreed to invest as much as $800 million to explore for oil, natural gas and shale gas in Ukraine. Shell will cooperate with Ukraine’s Ukrgasvydobuvannia to explore six license areas covering about 1,300 square kilometers (500 square miles) in the Kharkiv region. Drilling of the first deep exploration well would begin this year, it said.

–With assistance from Eduard Gismatullin in London. Editors: Tony Barrett, Randall Hackley

To contact the reporter on this story: John Buckley in Amsterdam at johnbuckley@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Voss at sev@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

BP to End Sakhalin Venture With Rosneft

By ALEXIS FLYNN

LONDON—BP PLC said it will end its 13-year alliance with Russian state-owned oil company OAO Rosneft to explore for oil and gas in Sakhalin, due in part to the economics of the Far East project.

The U.K.-based energy producer said that in recent meetings with the shareholders and board of ZAO Elvary Neftegaz it confirmed its intention to exit the joint venture. “There are many reasons for this decision, including the challenging economics of the discovered resource in the KV [Kaigansky-Vasuykansky] block,” BP said Friday.

The company first formed an exploration alliance with Rosneft in 1998, with an initial license to search for hydrocarbons in Kaigansky-Vasuykansky area granted in 2002. The following year, BP and Rosneft created the Elvary Neftegaz joint venture before commencing drilling operations in 2004.

Earlier this week, Rosneft Chief Executive Eduard Khudainatov was quoted by Interfax as saying BP had lost interest in Sakhalin.

The end of the joint venture marks a further Russian retreat for BP. In January, Rosneft agreed with BP to a $16-billion share swap and development of three Arctic offshore licenses, but that deal was blocked by BP’s partners in the TNK-BP Ltd. joint venture. Rosneft later announced a global partnership with Exxon Mobil Corp.

BP said Friday it will work with Rosneft to find the best way to accomplish its exit from Sakhalin. In his remarks to Interfax, Mr. Khudainatov said Rosneft remained “very interested” in the project but wouldn’t offer participation to anyone else following BP’s departure.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Rosneft: BP To Exit Sakhalin-5 Project – Report

MOSCOW -(Dow Jones)- BP PLC (BP, BP.LN) is to exit the Sakhalin-5 gas project, and Russian state oil company OAO Rosneft (ROSN.RS) will continue working on it on its own, Interfax news agency reported Monday, citing Rosneft Chief Executive Eduard Khudainatov.

BP is not interested in this project and we have made no secret of that…” Khudainatov was quoted as saying. “We are very interested. And we will not offer this project to anyone else.”

Rosneft agreed in January with BP to a $16-billion share swap and development of three Arctic offshore licenses, but that deal was blocked by BP‘s partners in the TNK-BP Ltd. joint venture. Rosneft later announced a global partnership with Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM).

-By Nadia Popova, Dow Jones Newswires; +7 495 232-9198, nadia.popova@ dowjones.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires 12-26-111014ET Copyright (c) 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Russian oil rig sinking casts doubt on Arctic plan

By NATALIYA VASILYEVA, AP Business Writer: 23 December 2011

Click on image to enlarge

MOSCOW (AP) — The sinking of a floating oil rig that left more than 50 crew dead or missing is intensifying fears that Russian companies searching for oil in remote areas are unprepared for emergencies — and could cause a disastrous spill in the pristine waters of the Arctic.

Only four months ago, Russian energy giant Gazprom sent Russia’s first oil platform to the environmentally sensitive region, and industry experts and environmentalists warned it is unfit for the harsh conditions and is too far from rescue crews to be reached quickly in case of an accident. They are demanding Russia put Arctic oil projects on hold.

Russia is the world’s largest oil producer, but it extracts most of its oil onshore, with no more than 2 percent of its production coming from mature offshore fields in the warm Black and Caspian seas and relatively new fields just off Sakhalin Island in the far east.

As Russia’s core oil fields in Eastern Siberia are depleted, companies are looking north. The government hopes that up to 80 million tons of oil will be produced annually in the Arctic by 2030.

Russia is trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic, which is believed to hold up to a quarter of the Earth’s undiscovered oil and gas. By speeding up the Arctic oil project, the government is strengthening its bid.

The Kolskaya floating oil rig that capsized and sank in the Sea of Okhotsk on Dec. 18 had done exploratory drilling for Gazprom Neft Shelf, a subsidiary of Gazprom. It was being towed back to an eastern Russian port in a fierce storm when a strong wave broke some of its equipment and portholes, and it capsized in the choppy water.

Gazprom is now pioneering the oil development of Russia’s sector of the Arctic and was the first Russian company to dispatch a drilling rig to the Pechora Sea in northwest Russia.

Russian oil companies have never operated in weather conditions as harsh as those found in the ice-bound Arctic, where ice ridges are meters (yards) deep and storms are frequent. The Kolskaya accident has reinforced fears that they are unprepared to meet the challenges.

“This tragedy has once again reminded us of how high the risks of offshore accidents are,” said Alexei Knizhnikov, an oil and gas policy officer with the World Wildlife Fund.

WWF, Greenpeace and five regional Russian environmental organizations signed a petition on Thursday calling for a parliamentary investigation and urging the government to suspend the oil projects for now.

The petition accuses government agencies of failing to enforce environmental and safety regulations and says that current laws are inadequate for dealing with the magnitude of risk in the Arctic.

Environmentalists first raised their concerns when Gazprom announced in August that it was sending its platform to the Arctic for exploratory drilling in the Pechora oil field, which holds some 6.6 million tons of oil.

The platform’s underwater section was built in Russia in the 1990s, while its upper part comes from a platform built in Scotland in 1982 and decommissioned from the North Sea in 2002.

Gazprom insists the Prirazlomnaya platform, billed as the first to be ice resistant, is safe and contains no old equipment except for its frame.

“We’ve done our best to implement the latest technology and regulations to prevent any accidents,” Vladimir Vovk, chief of Gazprom’s department for the management of equipment and technologies in developing marine fields, said at a news conference in September.

Environmentalists question both the state of the equipment and the platform’s design. Because the Prirazlomnaya is situated hundreds of kilometers (miles) offshore, it is designed to store huge quantities of oil until tankers can arrive to collect it. The platform’s storage tanks can hold up to 120,000 tons (840,000 barrels).

Unlike the Kolskaya, which was carrying no oil when it sank, the Arctic platform could potentially cause a disastrous spill if it capsized in icy, rough seas.

The distance from shore would also complicate any rescue or cleanup mission. The nearest port of any size is in Murmansk, some 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) away.

Even in warmer, more hospitable waters, accidents at oil platforms have been disastrous.

A giant oil slick was approaching the coast of Nigeria on Friday after what Royal Dutch Shell said was a spill during the transfer of oil from its floating platform in the offshore field to a waiting tanker. The spill came less than a week after Shell received approval from the U.S. government to drill exploratory wells off Alaska’s northwest coast, in the Chukchi Sea near Russian waters.

In the Gulf of Mexico, the 2010 explosion of the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers and led to more than 200 million gallons (4.8 million barrels) of oil spewing from a well deep beneath the sea.

Russia’s parliament gave preliminary approval in September to a bill intended to tighten regulations on oil companies working in the Arctic.

Yekaterina Khmelyova, an environment law officer at the WWF, said the bill does not do enough to hold the oil companies publicly accountable or to guarantee a full assessment of the environmental risks. She said environmentalists and the business community are working on a new draft that among other things would provide for the creation of clean-up funds.

Oil industry experts also have expressed doubts about Gazprom’s expertise in offshore drilling in the Arctic as well as the platform’s design.

They have questioned the economic justifications for the project. The oil in the Pechora field is of low quality and the project will be loss-making without tax breaks, said Valery Nesterov, a senior analyst with the Moscow-based investment bank Troika Dialog. For state-controlled Gazprom, the Arctic project appears to be more of strategic importance than about any immediate economic benefits, he said.

“This is clearly a strategic task that the company is executing,” Nesterov said. “It looks like Russia is not going to give up that strategy since the interests of ship yards, machinery producers and, possibly, the military are involved.”

Four years ago, Russia staked its claim to supremacy in the Arctic by planting a titanium flag on the ocean floor and arguing that an underwater ridge connected the country directly to the North Pole. The United States does not recognize the Russian assertion and has its own claims, along with Denmark, Norway and Canada.

Russia, Canada and Denmark are planning to their respective file claims to the ridge to the United Nations.

In past years, Russian ship yards and machinery producers have been able to stay afloat largely thanks to large orders coming from state-owned plants and government-sponsored projects. A large-scale oil and gas development of the Arctic is likely to give a welcome boost to both industries.

SOURCE ARTICLE