Posts Tagged ‘WWF’

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.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

SOURCE ARTICLE

How do farmers prove that Shell has polluted their lands, what lengths people have to go through to get their rights?

From pages 35, 36 & 37 of “Royal Dutch Shell and its sustainability troubles” – Background report to the Erratum of Shell’s Annual Report 2010

The report is made on behalf of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands)
Author: Albert ten Kate: May 2011.

Farmers, scientists, NGOs, a Dutch princess, a business tycoon, a long-distance swimmer, a Facebook account with already 6,500 members as of 19 April 2011. Royal Dutch Shell is facing strong opposition to its plans to get an exploration license to seek shale gas in South Africa’s semi-desert Karoo region.

The consulting firm Golder Associates, working on behalf of Shell, drafted an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for three exploration areas, each comprising 30,000 kilometres. Until 5 April 2011, the public was allowed to comment to these plans. The drilling of a maximum of 24 wells was not expected to commence before 2012. Golder stated in its conclusions to the EMPs that there was no material evidence that a small number of exploration wells could result in an unacceptable level of environmental impact, and that therefore the determination of the resource potential of the Karoo shale gas formations not should be prevented or delayed. As long as the siting and management of the wells would be controlled through a rigorous, scientific Environmental Impact Assessment process, it would be unlikely that the construction would result in unacceptable environmental damage, the company continued.

Scientists of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under this administration and at the direction of U.S. Congress, are currently undertaking a study on the practice of hydraulic fracturing to better understand any potential impacts on drinking water and groundwater. The results of this study are not expected before late 2012. Golder stated that there was no need to wait with handing over an exploration license, because Shell’s application did not involve production. Before any licensing of a production well field is considered, the EPA-study should however be considered, according to Golder.

Thousands of comments to the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) of Golder were submitted. The strong public resistance against fracking the Karoo resulted in a moratorium by the government on licenses in the Karoo where fracking is proposed. On Wednesday 20 April 2011, the South African Cabinet endorsed the decision by the Department of Minerals to invoke this moratorium. The Department of Minerals will lead a multi disciplinary team including the Departments of Trade & Industry, Science and Technology, amongst others, to fully research the full implications of the proposed fracking. It was stated that the Cabinet had made it very clear that clean environment together with all the ecological aspects will not be compromised.

The opponents of the exploratory plans are however not re-assured: − Business tycoon Johann Rupert: “We don’t think the legal framework was designed for this fracking method and we are very, very scared about the irreversibility of the ecological damage, should it occur.” − Professor Doreen Atkinson of the Centre for Development Support at the University of Free State (UFS): “There is a prima facie case to put a hold on any decisions around fracking until studies have been done. These studies may take at least 3 to 5 years. It would also be prudent to first see the results of the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which has embarked on a study. Its results are only expected in late 2012.”

− Long-distance swimmer Lewis Gordon Pugh: “Growing up in Grahamstown I learnt how scarce water is in the Karoo. Why on earth would we allow a foreign company to come and drill for gas in a vulnerable ecosystem? Why would we risk contaminating our water supply? It is morally wrong. It also makes poor economic sense. We must look after our water for future generations.”

− Dr Anthony Turton, a well-known trans-disciplinary water scientist: “In the absence of certainty, it is prudent to assume the worst and respond accordingly. In the case of fracking, there are many unknowns technologically. At best it is chasing a highly marginal resource. Invariably the costs exceed the benefits if one takes potential environmental damage into consideration. But because the benefits are so few, if things go wrong, there is not enough to pay for environmental remediation.”

− Geologist and palaeontologist Professor Bruce Rubidge of the University of Witwatersrand’s Bernard Price Institute: “The fact that companies like Shell are saying that they will use sea- and brack- water for the fracking may have unwelcome effects on the salinity of the groundwater. Also in the fracking process there will undoubtedly be some of this sea and brack water which has been contaminated with chemicals and which will spill out on the surface, as has happened in many recorded cases in America. What will it do to the soil?”

− Ernest Pringle, president of Agri-Eastern Cape and a farmer in the Karoo: “I spent all my time trying to pump up more groundwater to keep going. So we want to know with certainty what the effects will be to the underground water supply.”

− Mark Botha, head of conservation at environmental group WWF South Africa: “We’ve got some serious concerns about fracking, it is as yet an unproven technology with unacceptable risks for fresh water abstraction and pollution.”

− Derek Light, a lawyer representing a number of Karoo land owners: “We are very concerned about the environmental impact, especially because fracking is not regulated in South Africa.”

− Princess Irene of the Netherlands (this sister of the queen owns land in the Karoo): “There are other ways to generate energy, for which we do not exploit nature but cooperate with it. With wind or solar energy nothing gets polluted, nothing gets broken. More companies are recognizing that we are partners of nature. Shell is stuck in its old patterns.”

− At the beginning of April 2011, several scientists and consultants responded to Shell’s application with an extensive 104-page critical review.

Even in the case that the fracking operations by Shell could be performed without compromising a clean environment together with all the ecological aspects, there is still the issue of where Shell would get the massive amounts of water needed. The company has made a commitment “not to compete with the people of the Karoo for their water needs.” One of the options Shell considers is to get water from sea. Shell has also stated it is commuted to provide full compensation to any landowner with evidenced direct negative impact or loss on their land as a result of its activities. This may however seem less re-assuring than it looks like. How do farmers prove that Shell has polluted their lands, what lengths people have to go through to get their rights?

A further extract from the report will be published in the coming days.

THE COMPLETE 73 PAGE REPORT (with reference sources)

Extracts from “Halt Shell projects in North Sea…”:

Shell technical director Glen Cayley has apologised and admitted the existing pipeline inspection and maintenance programme had let the company down.

WWF Scotland also described Shell’s performance during the spill as a “lesson on how to look evasive and shifty”.

BY CATRIONA WEBSTER: 22 August 2011

A LEADING environmental charity has called on the UK Government to restrict all Shell operations in the North Sea until a full audit of its installations is carried out.

WWF Scotland made the plea after it was revealed that the UK Government’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had censured the oil giant 25 times in six years for breaking safety rules.

It was also reported yesterday that an internal investigation by Shell eight years ago raised serious concerns about safety in the Gannet oil field, where the company has been fighting to stem the worst North Sea oil leak in over a decade.

Last night, however – as Shell defended its safety record – politicians warned that shutting down its UK operation would be an “overreaction”. More than 200 tonnes of oil leaked into the water from a flowline to the Gannet Alpha platform, 113miles east of Aberdeen.

Divers closed the leaking valve on Friday, more than a week after the spill was detected on August 10.

Shell technical director Glen Cayley has apologised and admitted the existing pipeline inspection and maintenance programme had let the company down.

WWF Scotland director Richard Dixon called yesterday for a proper independent audit to be carried out on Shell installations – and said work should be halted in the meantime.

“Revelations over Shell’s own concerns about the Gannet field and about a series of prosecutions and warning from the HSE show a company that is struggling to operate safely in the North Sea,” he said.

”We shouldn’t be going after oil in difficult and sensitive waters anywhere in the world, but if there is some drilling in such locations, Shell’s track record clearly shows that they are not fit to be part of that exploration.”

Last night, a Shell spokesman said the company had completed a huge investment programme in the wake of an audit carried out in 2003. He said: ”Safety is Shell’s foremost priority at all times. As part of that commitment, in 2004 Shell initiated a $I.2billion (£.T28million) project to upgrade our assets in the North Sea. This has been completed. This year alone, we plan to invest approximately $600million (£364million) on our assets in the region.”

Aberdeen North MP Frank Doran said: “These are serious issues and it is important that Shell’s performance in this area improves dramatically – but I think it would be an overreaction to close down all their operations.”

Gordon MP Malcolm Bruce said lessons needed to be learned from the spill but the suggestion that installations should be shut down was “overly drastic”.

He said: “Some people appear to think that the industry shouldn’t be there at all. While most of us recognise that it needs to be there, we also need to be sure that all the necessary inspection and monitoring systems are robust enough.”

Industry body Oil and Gas UK said restrictions on Shell would be unnecessary. “In the UK we have very stringent and robust health-and-safety and environmental regulation and regulators have been very effective,” a spokesman said.: Given the strength of that regulation, shutting down platforms is just not required.”

WWF Scotland also described Shell’s performance during the spill as a “lesson on how to look evasive and shifty”.

Environmental Secretary Richard Lochhead has called for a review of procedures to inform the public about spills in UK waters.

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said a through investigation would be carried out by the Department for Energy and Climate Change and the HSE, with a full report sent to the procurator fiscal if appropriate.

Yesterday, Shell said no oil had seeped out since divers closed the valve.

The company will now carry out continuous monitoring to ensure the operation has been fully successful.

It has set up an investigation team to establish the cause of the leak.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Drilling is planned near heritage-listed Ningaloo Reef.

The Department of Environment said Shell could drill the Palta-1 exploration well, about 50km west of the Ningaloo Marine Park border, if it abided by conditions, including taking measures to avoid significant impacts on threatened species and migratory creatures such as whales.

The controversial decision has sparked outrage among conservationists, including The Wilderness Society, the World Wildlife Fund and the Greens.

The Wilderness Society WA marine co-ordinator Jill St John said the group would ask the Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke for a statement of reasons for his decision and for any evidence used to make his decision, before deciding whether to appeal to the Federal Court.

“In our view, this is an indefensible decision,” Ms St John said.

“The Minister has failed to properly consider the location of this well in relation to the World Heritage Area, which is a Commonwealth protected matter.

SOURCE

The multi-billion-dollar project, led by Royal Dutch Shell, has also been accused of inflicting large-scale damage on Sakhalin’s ecosystem, including illegal deforestation, the dumping of toxic waste, and soil erosion.

The construction of a third oil platform for the Shell-led Sakhalin II energy project may threaten a critically endangered population of gray whales off Russia’s eastern coast, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) said on Monday.

The company, which already has two platforms in the Russian Far East, announced in December its plans to build another one near the crucial feeding habitat of the gray whale population.

“The construction and operation of an additional off-shore platform could have numerous negative impacts on the whales, potentially disrupting feeding behavior and increasing the chance of fatal ship strikes,” WWF said in a statement. “Also, a third platform heightens the risk of an environmentally catastrophic oil spill in this sensitive habitat.”

Activists from various environmental groups have repeatedly voiced their concern about the possible negative impact of seismic work on gray whales, listed in the International Red Book of endangered species.

“Just around 30 female western gray whales of breeding age remain – the population is already on the brink of disappearing forever,” the statement quoted Alexei Knizhnikov, Oil ans Gas Environmental Policy Officer for WWF-Russia, as saying. “The loss of even a few breeding females could mean the end for the population.”

The multi-billion-dollar project, led by Royal Dutch Shell, has also been accused of inflicting large-scale damage on Sakhalin’s ecosystem, including illegal deforestation, the dumping of toxic waste, and soil erosion.

MOSCOW, January 17 (RIA Novosti)

Oil and gas exploration by energy giants Exxon, BP and Rosneft is seriously threatening one of the world’s most critically endangered whales, according to a panel of top scientists in a new report. The Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel (WGWAP), composed of 11 scientists and representatives from Shell and Sakahlin Energy…

April 24, 2009: 11:50 AM ET

LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Sakhalin Energy, which recently started a large liquefied natural gas plant in Russia’s far east, has canceled all planned 2009 seismic surveys following pressure from environmental groups and scientists seeking to protect the habitat of the Western Gray Whale, the Russian branch of the World Wildlife Fund said in a statement Friday.

The WWF Russia called on other companies operating in the area -BP PLC (BP), ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) and OAO Rosneft (ROSN.RS) – to take similar action.

The decision of Sakhalin Energy, a joint venture between OAO Gazprom (GAZP.RS) , Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RSDB.LN), Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (8031.TO) and Mitsubishi Corp. (8058.TO), followed new research showing a significant decline in sightings, and behavior changes of the whales in their primary feeding area near Piltun Bay, the statement said.

Oil and gas exploration activities in the area appear to have displaced the whales to deeper areas offshore, making it more difficult for whale calves to feed, the WWF said.

“WWF lauds the responsible and forward looking approach taken by Sakhalin Energy in heeding this call from the panel,” said Aleksey Knizhnikov, oil and gas environmental policy officer for WWF-Russia.

Sakhalin Energy wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Company Web site: www.wwf.ru; www.sakhalinenergy.com

-By James Herron, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 (0)20 7842 9317; james.herron@ dowjones.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires 04-24-09 1150ET Copyright (c) 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Oil and natural gas development off the coast of Sakhalin Island in Russia’s Far East could have forced endangered whales to leave their habitat in the area, a local WWF spokesperson said on Thursday.

Sakhalin, Russia – The fate of the world’s few remaining Western Grey Whales now rests on the outcome of appeals to Russian authorities and courts following the refusal of an oil consortium to consider alternatives to a proposal to lay an oil pipeline through a shallow lagoon crucial to the whales’ food supplies.