|
Каспинфо ноябрь 2001 |
|
Название: Нефть и газ в мире на англ. языке Главные Пункты: * С.Крецман (Институт политических исследований - ИПИ) выступает против предоставления Международной финансовой корпорацией ссуды для поддержки операций компании Royal Dutch Shell в Нигерии. Исследование, проведенное ИПИ, организацией "Друзья Земли" и др. организациями, показало, что запланированные проекты ускорят процесс глобального потепления. * Охотник выстрелил в Аляскинский нефтепровод из винтовки, что привело к утечке 286 тыс. галлонов нефти. Юридическая фирма, занимающаяся делами ряда американских нефтяных компаний, провела исследование безопасности энергетических объектов в США и пришла к выводу, что уровень защиты нефтепроводов, танкерных перевозок нефти и других объектов очень низок. * Администрация Дж. Буша-мл. намерена разрешить добычу нефти и газа на еще не охваченных деятельностью нефтяных компаний 5% территории Национального Арктического заповедника, что может привести к разливам нефти. * Апелляционный суд США счел штраф в размере $5,3 млрд., наложенный на компанию Exxon за инцидент с танкером Valdez в 1989 г., в результате которого в залив Принца Уилльяма вылилось 11 млн. галлонов нефти и пострадало 10 видов арктической фауны, чрезмерным. По решению суда компания должна заплатить не более $1,6 млрд., т.к. она предприняла попытки ликвидации последствий разлива и добровольно выплатила компенсации рыбакам в размере $300 млн. (21.11.2001) Полный Текст Нефть и газ в мире на англ. языке Нефть и газ в мире на англ. языке *** Big Oil And The Bank: Clear And Present Danger It was early June, in the sweltering heat of Nigeria's oil capital, Port Harcourt, and the phone was ringing. The man on the other end said he was in town for only a few hours, that he was here representing the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and that he'd like to talk. It wasn't hard for the staff of Environmental Right Action in Port Harcourt, Nigeria to figure out why he was calling. Just two weeks before, Washington, D.C.-based nonprofits had revealed that the IFC, the World Bank's private sector lending arm, was about to approve a $15 million loan which would ultimately benefit Royal Dutch Shell's operations in Nigeria. Communities, and local environmental and human rights groups, were outraged. Shell is widely blamed in the Niger Delta for the death by hanging of writer/activist Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1995, as well as a host of other human rights and environmental problems associated with oil development. Even the IFC's own internal documents recognized that association with Shell in Nigeria represented a "reputational risk" to the World Bank Group.The IFC had a problem on its hands. Although it had been working on the loan for almost two years, it had never formally consulted with the communities who might be affected by the loan - an oversight which represents a serious breach of Bank guidelines, and could have derailed the project. So a small team was quickly dispatched to Port Harcourt to talk to some of the locals. According to Isaac Osuoka, of Environmental Rights Action (ERA), "the man arrived here on a half hour's notice, talked to me for about twenty minutes, during which I told him we opposed the project, and that was it." Back in Washington, though, the loan was speedily approved, now that management had been satisfied that "proper consultation" had indeed taken place. IFC staff claimed to have conducted six consultations with other groups on the ground in Nigeria, and said that only ERA opposed the project. ERA was quick to point out that four of the other five groups that IFC "consulted" were actually funded by the oil industry - and that the fifth was a U.S. academic who had been traveling in Nigeria. It was, according to Nnimmo Bassey of ERA, "a mark of the hypocrisy often termed transparency in the boardrooms of these neocolonial concerns."But there is little unique about the Nigeria loan; the World Bank and Big Oil often work together. The World Bank Group currently devotes approximately 20 percent of its lending to energy-related projects, of which the overwhelming majority is devoted to projects that extract or burn fossil fuels. Financing for fossil fuel related projects alone topped $1.3 billion in 2000. Overall, between 1992 and the present, the Bank Group approved funding for more than $18.5 billion in oil, gas, and coal projects in developing countries - about 25 times more than the Bank spent on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Beginning in 1998, rising awareness of the Bank Group's role in fueling climate change has led to some retrenchment of some World Bank branches' fossil fuel portfolios. At the IFC, however, little has changed: since 1998, the agency has backed corporate oil, coal, and gas developments to the tune of $2.5 billion.At base, say critics, the issue is that Bank lending for fossil fuel projects runs counter to the Bank's stated mission of helping the poor. Lending for fossil fuels actually harms both the poor and the environment, they argue. A recent internal paper from the IFC offered support for this claim, noting that: "The notion that governments invest incremental rents/returns from extractive industries profitably and for the benefit of poor people is all too often more of an aspiration than a reality. Cross national data from 113 countries between 1971-1997 has shown that oil exports are strongly associated with governance weaknesses - some resource rich governments use royalty proceeds to keep tax rates low, cultivate patronage and increase military expenditures"Michael Ross, recently a visiting scholar at the World Bank, conducted the study "Does Resource Wealth Cause Authoritarian Rule?" Ross concluded the problems with lending in this sector can be traced to "a rentier effect, which suggests that resource-rich governments use low tax rates and patronage to dampen democratic pressures; and a repression effect, which holds that resource wealth retards democratization by enabling the government to better fund the apparatus of repression."Environmentalists have long been concerned about the local and global impacts of fossil fuel extraction, including oil spills, tailing ponds, toxic emissions and other local impacts. While best practices can mitigate some of these impacts, the issue of carbon emissions from fossil fuel projects is not so quickly dealt with.Research by the Institute for Policy Studies, Friends of the Earth, and other groups critiquing the pattern of international financial institution investments in oil, gas and coal projects concludes the planned projects will vastly accelerate global warming, while also choking off investment in renewable energy and recklessly endangering and displacing local people and environments. In response to such criticism, the World Bank recently began a "strategic review" of its investments in the oil, gas and mining sectors. According to the Bank's own reports, lending in these areas represents a "clear and present danger" because of "global concern over inherent sustainability of extractive industries" and "compelling evidence of accelerating global warming." Environmentalists and human rights advocates remain skeptical of the efficacy of reviews unless the critical question of whether to lend at all to these industries is on the table."There is no reason why the richest corporations on the planet deserve any form of public subsidy from the World Bank or any other public institution to continue to pump out more oil, gas and coal," says Daphne Wysham, coordinator of the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network. "We need to invest our public money in the public good. For the poorest who will be most dramatically and directly harmed by climate change, the greatest public good is to invest every spare dollar in renewables and energy efficiency now." For the World Bank, it is still business as usual while the studies move forward. After approving the loan for Shell's contractors in Nigeria, the IFC immediately moved to the next critical piece of funding for the poor. In mid-June, the Board approved a $1.75 million loan for a 4-star hotel in Port Harcourt because "these companies will continue to demand clean reasonably priced hotel rooms."- Stephen Kretzmann is campaigns coordinator for the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies. *** Oil Industry Seeks Federal Help Against Terror November 5, 2001 By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 - It was not a terrorist act, just a drunken hunter with a rifle who shot a hole in the Alaska pipeline last month. Nonetheless, he disrupted the flow of 286,000 gallons of oil for three days and raised doubts about the ability to both protect the 800-mile pipeline from attack and maintain its flow of oil. Energy companies are aware of the threat terrorists pose and they are seeking help from the government to make themselves less vulnerable. Bracewell & Patterson, a Washington law firm that represents several energy companies, set out to explore the extent of security that existed for such companies and what needed to be done to improve it. A result is a 42-page overview of the state of energy security in America and how various facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attack. Marc Racicot, the former governor of Montana and a partner in the firm, plans to give the report to Tom Ridge, director of homeland security, on Monday. "The more we studied this, the more important in our minds it became to present what is out there," said Rob Housman, a lawyer at the firm and the report's principal author. The report makes several recommendations to the government. It calls for tax credits and low-cost financing to help the industry improve security. It says the government should eliminate the "regulatory impediments" that it says preclude the industry from building plants that could withstand a terrorist attack, and it calls for the withholding of safety information that the government now requires companies to make available on the Internet. Like the airline industry, the energy companies also want some liability and insurance protections. And they want to be able to file "security impact statements," which can presumably override the "environmental impact statements" that often result in expensive pollution controls they did not want in the first place. They also expect protection that only the government can provide, like the National Guard patrolling their airspace, specially trained Guard units protecting them on the ground, the government sharing its intelligence to try to prevent attacks and the Coast Guard helping to protect ports and off-shore rigs. Already, the government has moved to protect airspace over nuclear power plants. "Obviously, when we look at targets nationally that are potentially vulnerable, one of the first places you would be looking would be to your nuclear facilities owned by both the Defense Department and the public in general," Mr. Ridge said on Friday. "There is a universe of potentials that we have to deal with," he added. "Unfortunately, in the business we're in, we have to deal with the `What if?' " The new report will give him even more to ponder. The nation has about 19,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines, and 200,000 miles of transmission lines. Terrorist attacks on any of these lines could cause power failures, environmental and economic damage, and threats to human life. "Depending on the nature of the attack," the report says, "an energy infrastructure attack in an urban area could expose from hundreds to even hundreds of thousands of people to serious harms, ranging from radiation to toxic clouds to massive explosions." The report notes that the Alaska pipeline has been perceived for years as an especially vulnerable target. It carries 20 percent of the nation's crude oil, and half of the pipeline - about 400 miles - lies above ground in unpopulated areas. A report in 1997 by the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection found pipelines like this one "a huge, attractive and largely unprotected target array for saboteurs." But, the Bracewell & Patterson report notes, "little has been done to address this risk." The report explores other potential threats, like those posed to oil tankers, oil refineries and power grids from the ground, the air and cyberspace. Mr. Housman said that "not every inch" of pipeline or transmission line needed protection but that the current level of security was inadequate. "No private-sector company has the wherewithal to defeat a terrorist threat on the order of a hijacked airplane turned missile or a weapon of mass destruction," the report says. "Moreover, the types of governmental assistance required to combat such threats go far beyond the current levels of support now being provided." As to concerns that the energy industry could use security to ride roughshod over current regulations, Mr. Housman said that industry had to be careful "not to cry wolf." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/05/politics/05ENER.html?ex=1005965610&ei=1&en =3e3e550b944e7cb2 *** Most Refuges Not Open to Drilling By Cat Lazaroff WASHINGTON, DC, November 12, 2001 (ENS) - If the Bush administration succeeds in persuading Congress to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, it would represent a departure from the government's recent pattern of barring most drilling within refuges. Environmentalists fear that Congressional approval could also set a dangerous precedent for the opening of other protected public lands. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope, which contains the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is already open to energy exploration. The Bush administration proposes to open the remaining five percent (Photo courtesy Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, asked the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress to review past government policy on energy exploration in national wildlife refuges. The GAO reported that about 14 percent of all refuges - 77 refuges located in 22 states - had some kind of oil and gas drilling or exploration last year. However, the report also shows that over the past 35 years, the government has only granted leases for energy production on refuges where energy companies were already producing oil or gas from beneath public lands, using wells on adjacent private lands. This tradition of restricting energy development on refuge lands dates back to the 1966 passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, which defined the refuge system as it exists today. The Act defined wildlife conservation as the primary mission of national wildlife refuges, and set up a system for deciding what uses of refuge lands are compatible with that mission. Exploration rig in the Alaskan arctic (Photo courtesy Arctic Power) "Since passage of this legislation, the Fish and Wildlife Service has approved the issuance of 13 leases," for energy development on five wildlife refuges, the GAO found. "In each case, the leases were issued because operators on land adjacent to the refuge boundaries were draining oil or gas resources owned by the federal government from refuge land without compensation." Representative Markey asked the GAO for the report due to concerns that allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) - a cornerstone of President George W. Bush's national energy policy - would set a bad precedent for the future of other refuges. He noted that supporters of drilling on ANWR's North Slope argue that many refuges already allow drilling. In January, Senator John Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, wrote an opinion piece for "The Wall Street Journal" in which he argued in favor of ANWR oil drilling. Breaux's home state has allowed oil and gas production from 1,605 wells on refuges, including some with "fragile wetlands," for almost 60 years, he noted. "If Louisiana can do it, why can't Alaska?" Breaux wrote, arguing that the energy activities have had "few adverse consequences." The GAO found that Louisiana and Texas, both major oil producing states, hold the most wildlife refuges with oil and natural gas activities on their land. In most of these, energy development was either already underway when the refuges were created, or the mineral rights to the refuges were already owned by private companies. Representative Edward Markey (Photo courtesy Office of the Representative) In July, Markey argued before Congress against approving oil drilling in ANWR, warning that the refuge's North Slope "has never before been subject to such development," and opening the refuge "would set a precedent not only for ANWR but for national wildlife refuges and other conservation areas throughout the United States." "Energy development is inherently incompatible with the purposes of the refuge," Markey said. "There are preferable alternatives for energy development that allow us to meet energy needs while preserving the pristine character of the refuge." Oil spills can be deadly to wildlife (Two photos courtesy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Drilling opponents note that the 19.8 million acre Arctic refuge is a pristine wilderness, and that most of its wildlife is concentrated on the coastal plain - precisely where the Bush administration proposes to drill for oil. They warn that drilling activities are likely to disrupt the movement of the Porcupine caribou herd, which uses the coastal plain as its primary calving ground. Opponents also fear the effects of potential catastrophic oil spills on the fragile tundra. According to the GAO, the Department of Interior requires energy companies to minimize damage, erosion, pollution or contamination to the refuge lands where they are permitted to drill. Yet only one of the refuges where drilling occurs - the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana - has an employee assigned full time to managing oil and gas activities. No refuge has funding dedicated solely to managing energy activities, and so must find a way to fund these needs through other departments. The Environmental Protection Agency says a single pint of oil can cover an acre of the water's surface After reviewing the GAO's report, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) noted that the Refuge Management Information System database, which it provided to the GAO to help the agency identify which refuges have energy activities, does not include a list of which refuges are crossed by oil or natural gas pipelines. The USFWS said it therefore does not have a comprehensive list of which refuges are vulnerable to an oil or gas spill. For example, the USFWS database did not include the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge in Tinicum, Pennsylvania, where a pipeline break spilled about 180,000 gallons of crude oil in February 2000. L Environment News Service (ENS) 2001. All Rights Reserved. *** Appeals Court Throws Out Exxon Valdez Penalty SAN FRANCISCO, California, November 8, 2001 (ENS) - A federal appeals court has overturned a $5.3 billion punitive damages award against Exxon stemming from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. The court called the amount, which was determined by a jury in Alaska, excessive, and ordered a judge to set a lower penalty. The oil tanker Exxon Valdez, grounded on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound (Four photos courtesy National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) The oil tanker Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound after its captain, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, ran aground on an underwater reef. The spill was the worst in U.S. history, fouling more than 3,000 square miles and crippling a sensitive ecosystem that has yet to fully recover. In 1994, a jury in Anchorage, Alaska awarded a group of 33,000 fishers, property owners and Alaska Natives harmed by the massive oil spill a total of $5 billion in damages as well as $287 million for compensatory damages. But on Wednesday, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that award to be excessive in light of recent Supreme Court rulings on damage awards. The court ruled that Exxon, which has since merged with Mobil to become the Exxon Mobil Corporation, can be made to pay punitive damages, but only of about $1.6 billion. The ruling sends the case back a judge at the district court in Alaska for a new ruling on damages, consistent with two earlier, precedent setting cases in which the Supreme Court outlined the factors that must be considered regarding punitive damage awards. These factors include the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio of the award to the harm inflicted on the plaintiffs, and the difference between the award and the civil or criminal penalties in similar cases. An estimated 250,000 seabirds and thousands of other animals were killed when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989 (Photo courtesy Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council) Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, writing the appeals court's unanimous decision, noted that that the $5.3 billion punitive damages award was more than 17 times larger than the $287 million compensatory damages award - far more than the four to one ratio approved by the Supreme Court in earlier cases. That could make Exxon responsible for about $1.65 billion in punitive damages. Kleinfeld said Exxon mitigated its reprehensibility by spending more than $2 billion to remove the oil from the Sound, some 1,500 miles of shoreline fouled with sticky oil, "and even from the individual birds and other wildlife dirtied by the oil." Exxon also "began settling with property owners, fishermen and others whose economic interests were harmed by the spill," Kleinfeld wrote, spending $300 million on voluntary settlements "prior to any judgments being entered against it." In 1994, an Anchorage jury determined that actual damages totaled $287 million and rejected the plaintiffs' claims for additional compensatory damages. Exxon, which had argued that it should not be liable for any punitive damages, had called the $5 billion award - the largest punitive damage award in history at the time, equal to a year's worth of the company's profits - "completely unwarranted, unfair and is excessive by any legal or practical measure." On Wednesday, Exxon Mobil Corporation applauded the appeals court decision, saying it confirmed the company's position that the award was excessive. In many locations in Prince William Sound, the action of tides and currents distributed oil high up on the rocky beaches Exxon Mobil Corporation chair Lee Raymond called the spill "a tragic accident that the company deeply regrets," and noted that the company "took immediate responsibility for the spill, cleaned it up, and voluntarily compensated those who claimed direct damages." The company halted its cleanup efforts in 1992, when the state of Alaska and the U.S. Coast Guard declared the cleanup complete, Raymond noted. Environmental groups and the Alaska government criticized the court's decision. The spill killed at least a quarter million birds, and thousands of marine mammals. A study released after the 10 year anniversary of the spill showed that just two species, the bald eagle and the river otter, had fully recovered from the disaster, while 10 species showed virtually no recovery. The spill also disrupted fishing communities, sending many fishers into bankruptcy and forcing many others to relocate from the only homes they had ever known. Alaska Governor Tony Knowles said Wednesday that the case against Exxon has gone on too long, and the current court decision will not heal the state's wounds. Despite efforts to protect locations like this salmon hatchery with floating booms, most fisheries were seriously damaged by the spill "The Exxon Valdez oil spill has really been a cloud that has hung over those fishing families and communities for more than a decade," Knowles said. "The court decision today didn't bring any resolution to that." The Sierra Club said the appeals court ruling could mean that polluting companies will view the risk of massive punitive damages as a see less of a deterrent, making them less likely to take steps to prevent accidents. "Anyone who thought we could count on the courts to ensure that the oil industry keeps its promises, and acts responsibly, has had a wake up call today," said Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope. "Once again, when we match the promises of 'clean, safe, environmentally responsible oil development' against reality, the promises lose. The oil industry always has, and apparently always will, cut corners, and take risks - and the courts will only slap them on the wrist." "Exxon harmed the environment and threatened the livelihood of Alaskans," continued Pope. "A lower fine sends a message that you can get away with it." The Ninth Circuit appeals court noted that the suit was "not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing." "The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen," the court said. Bags of Exxon Valdez cleanup debris await disposal Because the lower court found that Exxon and the captain of the Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood, were guilty of recklessness in causing the tanker to run aground on a charted reef, the company is liable for punitive damages, the appeals court said. "Plaintiffs correctly argue that Exxon's conduct was reprehensible because it knew of the risk of an oil spill in the transportation of huge quantities of oil through the icy waters of Prince William Sound," the court ruled. "And it knew Hazelwood was an alcoholic who was drinking. But this goes more to justify punitive damages than to justify punitive damages at so high a level." Lawyers for some of the fishers and property owners said they might challenge the ruling, or even try to take the case to the Supreme Court. L Environment News Service (ENS) 2001. All Rights Reserved. |