THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 25 AUGUST 2026
SLF-2007-037
The Sakhalin Papers XXVII: The Remedial Action Plan — When Compliance Failures Became a Formal Recovery Programme
By August 2007, Sakhalin II had moved beyond individual defects and scattered corrective actions. Rivers, erosion, reinstatement and wetlands were placed inside a formal lender-monitored remediation programme — with full HSESAP compliance not expected until the end of 2008.
Archive reference: SLF-2007-037
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal record: AEA Technology, Independent Environmental Consultant Final Report — Agency Lenders: Sakhalin II Phase 2 Project Health, Safety, Environmental and Social Review, 28 September 2007; August 2007 Sakhalin Energy Remedial Action Plan
Supporting record: Shell’s April 2007 Sakhalin II corporate announcement; Sakhalin Energy Environmental Action Plan agreed with the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources in March 2007; UK National Audit Office/House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee evidence; contemporaneous RIA Novosti reporting; Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: The existence, scope and August 2007 completion of the Remedial Action Plan are established. AEA’s identification of historical and continuing HSESAP non-compliances is established. The plan does not prove that Shell or Sakhalin Energy deliberately caused those failures, and AEA’s acceptance of the plan did not establish that its objectives were subsequently achieved.
Introduction
There is a point in the life of a troubled project when ordinary corrective action is no longer enough.
A defective installation can be repaired.
A contractor can be retrained.
An NCR can be closed.
A riverbank can be rebuilt.
But when problems recur across several environmental systems, the response changes.
By the summer of 2007, Sakhalin II had reached that point.
The prospective financial institutions had spent years comparing Sakhalin Energy’s environmental and social commitments with what was actually happening on the ground. Construction had begun in 2003, before the later and much more detailed package of environmental commitments had been completed. By 2006–07, the UK Parliamentary record states, it was becoming clear that those commitments were “not always being observed.” (UK Parliament)
The consequence was the Remedial Action Plan, finalised in August 2007.
This was not a vague promise to do better.
AEA Technology — acting as environmental consultant for prospective agency lenders — said the plan had to contain measurable objectives, deadlines, interim targets, success criteria, identified resources, responsible personnel and formal sign-off arrangements. (doczz.net)
Its principal subjects were equally revealing:
river habitats;
soil erosion and reinstatement;
wetland crossings. (doczz.net)
Those were precisely the areas in which earlier archive files have documented repeated problems.
The Remedial Action Plan therefore represents an important transition.
The argument was no longer merely about whether failures had occurred.
The project had begun formally organising how to repair them.
Two Remediation Plans — And They Should Not Be Confused
There were actually two important corrective programmes operating in 2007.
The first was Sakhalin Energy’s Environmental Action Plan, or EAP.
That plan arose from the confrontation with Russian environmental regulators.
AEA records that after inspections by Rosprirodnadzor and other government bodies, Sakhalin Energy established a task force involving SEIC and Starstroi specialists to develop an Environmental Action Plan and work with Russian officials on the findings.
The EAP covered winter river crossings, erosion and reinstatement, spoil management, design approvals, land management, protected species, fish, Aniva Bay, compliance and environmental monitoring. It was formally agreed with the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources in March 2007 as the basis for continuing implementation and refinement. (doczz.net)
Shell publicly referred to the same plan when announcing Gazprom’s entry into Sakhalin II in April 2007.
Shell said the revised EAP had been prepared with input from shareholders and Gazprom and submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resources. It described detailed action points, responsible parties and close-out dates, including measures intended to strengthen contractor environmental management during pipeline construction. (London South East)
The Remedial Action Plan — RemAP — was different.
It was directed principally at non-compliance with Sakhalin Energy’s Health, Safety, Environment and Social Action Plan, the HSESAP, and was intended for scrutiny by the prospective agency lenders.
The distinction is important.
The March EAP belonged principally to the Russian regulatory track.
The August RemAP belonged principally to the international financing and HSESAP-compliance track.
There was considerable overlap in subject matter.
But they were not the same document.
The Lenders Had More Than 2,000 Commitments to Monitor
By this stage, the environmental framework surrounding Sakhalin II had become enormous.
Evidence later placed before the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee explained that Sakhalin Energy’s expanded HSESAP contained more than 2,000 specific commitments and formed the basis for monitoring by prospective financial institutions and their environmental consultants. (UK Parliament)
That created an unusual situation.
The financial institutions were not simply evaluating a project on paper before construction began.
Much of Sakhalin II was already being built.
They therefore had to ask two different questions.
Were the environmental plans adequate?
And were the promises inside them actually being followed in the field?
The Parliamentary record says that by 2006–07 the second question was producing uncomfortable answers. (UK Parliament)
That is the institutional background to the RemAP.
It was not created merely because campaigners wanted another environmental document.
It emerged from a financing process in which prospective lenders had begun identifying a gap between written commitments and implementation.
AEA Was Commissioned by Sakhalin Energy — But Owed Duties to the Lenders
AEA’s role also needs to be described precisely.
The September 2007 report called AEA the Independent Environmental Consultant.
But AEA was commissioned by Sakhalin Energy itself.
Its report identifies Sakhalin Energy as the customer.
At the same time, AEA stated explicitly that, notwithstanding its appointment by SEIC, it had a duty of care to the Agency Lenders and that the work was undertaken for the banks and financial institutions potentially providing support to the project. (doczz.net)
That makes the report more complicated than either side’s preferred shorthand.
It was not an environmental campaign document.
Nor was it simply Shell public relations.
It was a consultant report contractually commissioned by the project company while serving a defined lender due-diligence function.
Its findings should be read on that basis.
The RemAP Was Already Late for One Important Purpose
The timing of the plan deserves particular attention.
AEA recorded that Sakhalin Energy had originally intended the relevant remediation process to be developed before the 2006–07 winter river-crossing season.
That did not happen.
By the time the RemAP was being completed, all sensitive river crossings had been finished by approximately mid-April 2007. (doczz.net)
The significance is substantial.
For river habitats, the plan could no longer principally prevent construction-phase non-compliance.
Much of the work had already happened.
The river section therefore became a programme of:
monitoring;
assessing damage;
restoring habitat;
and, where restoration might not be sufficient, considering environmental offsets. (doczz.net)
AEA nevertheless recorded an important point in Sakhalin Energy’s favour.
Although the RemAP had not been prepared before the final sensitive-river construction season as originally intended, AEA judged overall river-crossing performance during the winter of 2006–07 to have improved markedly compared with earlier years. (doczz.net)
The historical record therefore contains both facts.
The remediation framework was late.
Construction performance had nonetheless improved.
What AEA Required From the Plan
AEA was unusually specific about what would make the RemAP credible.
Objectives had to be measurable.
Targets had to have deadlines.
Success criteria had to be defined.
Interim milestones had to allow progress to be checked before final completion.
The plan had to identify the actions required, the resources needed, who was responsible and who had authority to sign off completion. (doczz.net)
This matters because it distinguishes the RemAP from a generic corporate commitment.
A statement such as:
“We will restore the affected areas”
would not satisfy those requirements.
The lender process was asking:
Which areas?
By when?
Against what measurable standard?
Using what resources?
Who is accountable?
Who decides that remediation is complete?
That is a formal recovery programme.
River Habitats: The Construction Phase Had Ended, the Recovery Phase Had Not
For rivers, AEA required the RemAP to concentrate on the locations where significant non-compliances had occurred and on the most environmentally sensitive waterways.
Monitoring was needed to determine the extent of construction impacts.
Only after those results became available could some final remedial actions be chosen.
AEA also contemplated environmental offsets where restoration alone might not fully address the effects. (doczz.net)
This is an important evidential point.
The RemAP did not begin from an assumption that all river effects had already been quantified.
Some had not.
The plan itself required further monitoring to establish what had happened.
Accordingly, the existence of the RemAP cannot be used to assert that every alleged river impact had already been proved.
It demonstrates that enough uncertainty and enough documented non-compliance existed to require a structured monitoring-and-remediation programme.
Some Rivers Had Already Been Under Stress for More Than Two Years
AEA’s description of river recovery makes clear why the issue could not simply be closed when construction equipment left.
It recorded that some rivers had experienced varying impacts for more than two years because of poor erosion control and crossings conducted across more than one season.
AEA said many habitats might recover within approximately two years, but recovery could take longer depending upon the river and degree of disturbance. (doczz.net)
That is not a finding of permanent destruction.
It is evidence of prolonged impact.
And it shows why lender monitoring had to continue beyond the physical pipeline installation programme.
A river crossing can be completed in days.
Ecological recovery may take years.
Soil Erosion: The Project Was Still Formally Out of Compliance
The most striking wording in the AEA report concerns reinstatement.
Technical reinstatement of parts of the pipeline right-of-way was intended to proceed during 2007.
Final biological reinstatement was scheduled for 2008.
AEA stated plainly that until final reinstatement was complete, the project would remain out of compliance with HSESAP commitments, and erosion risks would continue. (doczz.net)
Elsewhere in the same report, AEA gave the anticipated timetable more precisely.
Approximately half of the pipeline right-of-way was expected to be technically reinstated by the end of 2007.
The remaining technical reinstatement and all biological reinstatement were expected by the end of 2008.
AEA therefore said full HSESAP compliance was not anticipated until the end of 2008. (doczz.net)
That is an unusually important documentary finding.
In September 2007, the lender consultant was not saying the environmental compliance problem had been solved.
It was saying the project had a plan under which full compliance was expected more than a year later.
The 2008 Date Is Also Relevant to the Earlier Whistleblower Material
This point intersects with the May 2007 insider allegations examined in SLF-2007-034 and SLF-2007-035.
The anonymous source had claimed that proper observance of QA/QC requirements would push meaningful pipeline completion into 2008.
The subsequent construction record showed that the pipeline indeed remained under completion and commissioning deep into 2008.
AEA now adds another layer.
Full reinstatement and restoration of HSESAP compliance were themselves not expected until the end of 2008. (doczz.net)
That does not authenticate the whistleblower’s accusations of corruption, deliberate corner-cutting or suppressed reports.
It does strengthen one narrower proposition:
the project’s environmental and construction close-out work genuinely extended far beyond the timetable suggested by anyone treating 2007 as the end of the pipeline problem.
Steep Slopes Were a Particular Risk
AEA also made clear that remediation could not wait passively for final biological reinstatement.
Temporary erosion measures remained essential, particularly on steep slopes.
The consultant specifically called for improved surface stabilisation to reduce the danger of continued erosion before final restoration. (doczz.net)
This connects directly with concerns documented elsewhere in the Sakhalin archive regarding the Makarov region, unstable soils, river sediment and landslide-prone terrain.
The RemAP therefore had two time horizons.
Immediate measures were required to stop further deterioration.
Longer-term reinstatement was required to restore formal compliance.
Wetlands Presented a Different Problem
The wetland section was more uncertain.
AEA found examples where construction roads or running tracks had altered hydrological flows, causing flooding on one side and drying on the other.
It also documented access roads constructed with imported rubble and soil without suitable geotextile underlay, contrary to project standards and later HSESAP commitments.
Poor segregation and replacement of surface vegetation was also recorded at some locations. (doczz.net)
But AEA could not simply prescribe a universal repair.
The ecological sensitivity of affected wetland areas needed further study.
The extent of physical and ecological impact had to be assessed.
The RemAP therefore required monitoring, surveys and defined success criteria before some final restoration methods could be selected. (doczz.net)
That illustrates something important about remediation.
The act of discovering a breach does not automatically reveal the safest way to repair it.
In some fragile environments, aggressive removal of construction material can itself create further damage.
AEA expressly recognised that problem.
The RemAP Was Intended to Evolve
This was therefore never meant to be a static August 2007 document.
AEA described it as an evolving plan.
As monitoring produced new evidence and remediation progressed, additional actions could be identified.
Agency lenders were expected to review the initial version and subsequent versions as necessary. (doczz.net)
That feature should prevent another possible misunderstanding.
The finalisation of the August plan did not mean every problem was already fully understood.
Some actions depended on monitoring that had not yet been completed.
Some objectives would have to be refined later.
The plan institutionalised a process.
It did not close the file.
September 2007: AEA Gives the Plan a Qualified Approval
The most direct assessment appears in an appendix added after the main AEA report had effectively been completed.
AEA stated that the final RemAP had been produced in August 2007.
It reviewed the document and concluded that it met the requirements AEA had specified.
AEA went further and said the objectives “should be achieved if the detailed actions are fully implemented.”(doczz.net)
The qualification is crucial.
AEA did not say:
The objectives have been achieved.
It said they should be achievable if implementation followed.
The difference is the difference between approving a recovery plan and certifying successful recovery.
AEA also noted that some areas still required further objectives and actions once monitoring data became available. (doczz.net)
The September judgment was therefore positive but conditional.
The Russian Regulatory Programme Was Proceeding in Parallel
While the lender-focused RemAP was being developed, Sakhalin Energy continued dealing with Russian regulators through the Environmental Action Plan.
AEA’s appendix records that earlier Russian inspections had identified issues involving spoil tips, landslide and mudslide areas, culverts and bridges, riverbank protection and access-road drainage.
AEA said those concerns were broadly consistent with findings made by its own monitors. (doczz.net)
That overlap is historically important.
It shows that although the Russian regulatory campaign existed inside an unmistakably political struggle over Sakhalin II, some of the technical issues raised by Russian inspectors were also visible independently to the lender consultant.
The existence of political leverage does not erase technical non-compliance.
And technical non-compliance does not prove that every Russian enforcement action was politically neutral.
Both propositions remain true.
Water Licences Had Actually Been Suspended
AEA records one particularly concrete regulatory event.
On 5 December 2006, the Amur Water Basin Authority notified Starstroi that a number of water-use licences were suspended after violations identified during pipeline-construction audits.
The cited problems included riverbank reinstatement deficiencies, ineffective silt fences, spoil or debris in riverbeds, hydrological effects associated with bridges and culverts, non-simultaneous oil and gas pipeline crossings and sediment releases during construction. (doczz.net)
Starstroi then undertook remedial work.
AEA reported that documents including before-and-after photographs were sent to the authority.
Following a later inspection, the suspensions were lifted on 28 December 2006. (doczz.net)
This sequence is useful because it demonstrates remediation in practice.
Violation.
Regulatory action.
Corrective work.
Reinspection.
Licence restoration.
Not every environmental dispute remained unresolved.
October 2007: The Remediation Story Was Still Continuing Publicly
The August RemAP and September AEA review did not end the matter.
On 26 October 2007, RIA Novosti reported that Sakhalin Energy chief executive Ian Craig told Russian Natural Resources Minister Yuri Trutnev that the company would rectify environmental violations identified by the regulator within a year.
The programme reportedly included reinforcement of landslide-prone riverbanks and reforestation. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
RIA also reported that new regulator concerns had been raised in August involving alleged failures to carry out riverbank reinforcement and landslide-containment work on a pipeline section crossing several rivers. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
Those were regulator allegations, not judicial findings.
But the public commitment to another year of remedial work is consistent with AEA’s contemporaneous expectation that restoration would continue through 2008.
The RemAP Was Not Evidence That the Entire Project Had Failed
The plan should not be interpreted more broadly than the record allows.
AEA’s overall report did not conclude that Sakhalin II was universally non-compliant.
It identified many areas of satisfactory practice alongside a smaller number of significant shortcomings.
The consultant highlighted areas of international best practice as well as failures requiring remediation. (doczz.net)
The RemAP itself was concentrated on particular onshore-pipeline issues:
river habitats;
erosion and reinstatement;
wetlands.
It was not a declaration that every platform, processing plant, offshore pipeline, LNG facility or social programme had failed.
Precision matters.
Nor Was the RemAP Proof of Deliberate Corner-Cutting
The opposite exaggeration would be equally unsound.
A formal remedial plan proves that remediation was required.
It does not establish why the original non-compliances occurred.
The causes could include:
contractor failure;
poor supervision;
schedule pressure;
inadequate planning;
changing standards;
difficult terrain;
weather;
engineering error;
or management decisions.
Different failures may have had different causes.
The RemAP does not establish a corporate instruction from Shell, Sakhalin Energy or Gazprom to violate environmental requirements.
Nor does it prove the whistleblower allegation that management deliberately suppressed quality reports in order to accelerate construction.
Those propositions remain unproved.
What the Plan Does Establish
The historical significance of the RemAP is substantial without adding speculation.
By July 2007, AEA said there were historical and existing non-compliances with the Sakhalin II HSESAP. (doczz.net)
Those non-compliances were sufficiently important to require a formal plan addressing three major parts of the onshore pipeline environmental programme.
The plan was required to contain measurable objectives, deadlines, responsibilities and success criteria.
It was to remain under lender review.
And substantial reinstatement work was expected to continue until the end of 2008. (doczz.net)
That is a strong documentary conclusion.
The Parliamentary Record Later Confirmed the Institutional Story
The later House of Commons evidence provides a concise external summary of the same sequence.
Construction had started before the financial institutions completed their review.
Those institutions therefore monitored whether Sakhalin Energy’s environmental commitments were actually being fulfilled.
By 2006–07, the Parliamentary account said it was becoming apparent that this was not always happening.
Further engagement by the financial institutions resulted in the August 2007 Remedial Action Plan for the onshore pipelines. (UK Parliament)
This matters because it makes the origin of the plan clearer.
The RemAP was not merely an internal Shell initiative.
It emerged within an externally scrutinised financing process.
And Yet the UK Financing Decision Never Arrived
There is another irony.
The prospective UK public financing that helped generate so much of this scrutiny was never ultimately issued.
The Parliamentary record says that by early 2008 ECGD had still not made a substantive decision on whether to provide its guarantee.
In late February 2008, after a funding review, Sakhalin Energy withdrew its application and ECGD withdrew its conditional offer of support. (UK Parliament)
Thus one of the most detailed environmental due-diligence exercises in the project’s history was undertaken for financing that ultimately did not proceed.
That did not make the exercise irrelevant.
The monitoring had already changed the project.
The HSESAP existed.
The non-compliances had been documented.
The RemAP had been produced.
Remedial work had been programmed.
And the resulting records became part of the permanent historical evidence.
The High Court Record Confirms the Seriousness of the UK Scrutiny — But Not the Environmental Merits
The financing process also generated litigation.
In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), the High Court considered whether internal UK government communications concerning Sakhalin II should be disclosed under the Environmental Information Regulations.
The case records ECGD’s consideration of approximately US$650 million in project support and the significant environmental controversy surrounding the project. (vLex)
Mr Justice Mitting dismissed ECGD’s appeal against the disclosure decision.
But that judgment must not be misrepresented.
The court did not decide whether the RemAP was adequate.
It did not decide whether Shell caused environmental damage.
It did not adjudicate individual river crossings.
And it did not determine whether whistleblower allegations about QA/QC suppression were true.
The case belongs to the transparency history of Sakhalin II.
It is not an environmental liability judgment.
Documentary Findings
Established
AEA Technology recorded that historical and existing HSESAP non-compliances remained on the Sakhalin II project during 2007, particularly in relation to river habitats, soil erosion and reinstatement and wetland crossings. (doczz.net)
Sakhalin Energy finalised a Remedial Action Plan in August 2007.
AEA reviewed the plan and concluded that it met the requirements AEA had specified for the prospective Agency Lenders. (doczz.net)
The plan required measurable and time-bound objectives, interim targets, success criteria, resources, assigned responsibilities and sign-off arrangements. (doczz.net)
All sensitive river crossings had been completed by approximately mid-April 2007, meaning the river component of the RemAP concentrated substantially on monitoring, restoration and possible offsets rather than preventing the earlier construction work. (doczz.net)
AEA expected final biological reinstatement to continue through 2008 and stated that full HSESAP compliance was not anticipated until the end of that year. (doczz.net)
The House of Commons record later stated that the financial institutions had found that Sakhalin Energy’s published commitments were not always being observed and that their engagement contributed to the August 2007 Remedial Action Plan. (UK Parliament)
A separate Environmental Action Plan addressing Russian regulatory findings had already been agreed with the Ministry of Natural Resources in March 2007. (doczz.net)
Supported with qualification
The project required substantial remediation well after major sections of physical construction had been completed.
Lender scrutiny materially influenced the formality and monitoring of that remediation.
Some regulator concerns overlapped with issues independently identified by AEA.
The May 2007 whistleblower’s broad contention that environmental and QA/QC close-out would extend into 2008 is consistent with the subsequent documentary timeline.
AEA considered the August RemAP capable of meeting its stated objectives if fully implemented.
That was a prospective assessment of the plan, not certification that the remedial work had already succeeded. (doczz.net)
Not established
The Remedial Action Plan does not establish that Shell deliberately ordered environmental requirements to be breached.
It does not establish that Sakhalin Energy management knowingly sacrificed QA/QC standards for schedule.
It does not prove systematic suppression of Non-Conformance Reports.
It does not establish that every Russian regulatory allegation was correct.
It does not establish that every documented HSESAP non-compliance caused significant ecological damage.
It does not establish that the August 2007 RemAP was fully implemented or that every stated objective was ultimately achieved.
And the 2008 English High Court judgment did not determine any of those questions.
Commentary
The Remedial Action Plan is important precisely because it is less dramatic than the allegations surrounding Sakhalin II.
It contains no explosive whistleblower accusation.
No intercepted conversation.
No denunciation by a regulator.
No colourful executive email.
Its importance is bureaucratic.
By August 2007, environmental failure had become sufficiently documented that it required targets, dates, budgets, responsibilities, monitoring and formal sign-off.
That is often how large institutions acknowledge a problem.
Not with an admission saying:
We failed.
But with a management system designed to repair what has gone wrong.
The language of the AEA report is particularly revealing.
Historical non-compliances.
Existing non-compliances.
Restoration.
Monitoring.
Offsets.
Reinstatement.
Success criteria.
Full compliance.
Those are not campaign slogans.
They are the vocabulary of project assurance.
And perhaps the most significant sentence in this entire file is the least sensational:
full HSESAP compliance was not anticipated until the end of 2008.
That places the earlier whistleblower warnings in a much clearer chronological setting.
In May 2007, an anonymous source said the pipeline could not be completed properly within the timetable being pursued.
The source’s allegations about motive remain unproved.
But the subsequent project record shows construction, commissioning and environmental close-out stretching deep into 2008.
The RemAP provides institutional confirmation that major environmental obligations were still unresolved.
At the same time, AEA’s favourable assessment of the August plan must also be preserved.
The consultant did not conclude that the project was incapable of recovery.
It concluded that the plan met the requirements it had set and that the objectives should be achievable if the specified actions were carried out.
That is not exoneration.
Nor is it condemnation.
It is something more useful.
A documented picture of a project in recovery.
And that distinction is exactly why The Shell Leaks Files has adopted the rule that increasingly governs this archive:
document first, conclusion second.
Source Record
The principal technical record is AEA Technology plc, Independent Environmental Consultant Final Report — Agency Lenders, Sakhalin II Phase 2 Project Health, Safety, Environmental and Social Review, dated 28 September 2007. AEA states that it was commissioned by Sakhalin Energy but owed a duty of care to the prospective Agency Lenders. The report identifies historic and continuing HSESAP non-compliances, specifies the required content of the Remedial Action Plan and contains an Appendix 2 update recording the plan’s finalisation in August 2007. (doczz.net)
The same report distinguishes the lender-focused RemAP from Sakhalin Energy’s earlier Russian-regulator-facing Environmental Action Plan, agreed with the Ministry of Natural Resources in March 2007. (doczz.net)
Shell’s own April 2007 corporate announcement concerning Gazprom’s entry into Sakhalin II described the revised EAP as including enhanced contractor-management measures, detailed actions, responsible parties and close-out dates. (London South East)
The UK institutional record is supplied by evidence published by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee and the National Audit Office material on ECGD and sustainability. It records that by 2006–07 project commitments were not always being observed and that further engagement by the financial institutions resulted in the August 2007 Remedial Action Plan. It also records the later withdrawal of Sakhalin Energy’s application for ECGD support. (UK Parliament)
Contemporaneous RIA Novosti reporting of 26 October 2007 recorded Sakhalin Energy CEO Ian Craig’s statement that a further programme to rectify environmental violations, including riverbank reinforcement and reforestation, would be completed within a year. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
The relevant English judicial record is Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin). The case confirms the scale of ECGD’s proposed involvement and the environmental-information dispute but does not adjudicate the underlying Sakhalin II engineering or environmental allegations. (vLex)
Archive disclaimer: The existence of a remedial programme establishes that identified matters required corrective action. It does not establish deliberate misconduct, criminality or a particular causal explanation for every non-compliance. AEA’s conclusion that the August 2007 RemAP met its requirements was conditional upon full implementation and should not be represented as proof that remediation had already been completed successfully.
Site wide disclaimer also applies.
Next Archive File
SLF-2007-038 — The Sakhalin Papers XXVIII: The Financing That Never Arrived — ECGD, EBRD and the Environmental Test That Outlived the Loan
The Remedial Action Plan existed because international financial institutions were still deciding whether Sakhalin II met the standards required for public-backed project finance.
But the financing story took an extraordinary turn.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development had already withdrawn from consideration after Gazprom took control.
Britain’s Export Credits Guarantee Department continued its scrutiny.
Its environmental advisers monitored Sakhalin II.
Government departments exchanged confidential assessments.
Friends of the Earth fought for those assessments to be released.
The dispute reached the Information Tribunal.
Then the High Court.
And while that legal battle was unfolding, Sakhalin Energy withdrew its application for ECGD support.
The money never arrived.
The environmental paper trail remained.
That creates the next documentary question:
How did a financing process that ultimately produced no UK loan or guarantee leave behind one of the richest independent documentary records of Sakhalin II’s environmental performance?
SLF-2007-038 will follow the lenders — from EBRD’s exit, through ECGD’s prolonged due diligence and the High Court disclosure battle, to the February 2008 withdrawal that ended the financing application but preserved the evidence.
*This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment, the Shell DPA Files, "Shell and the Spies", the Shell Leaks files, as well as books written and published by John Donovan - Kindle eBooks. Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud. Toxic History of Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record — 550+ Articles, 110 Books, 40 Years. *All created and supported by internet wizz, Nick Gill.
