On the verge of a disaster or Why I am against oil pipelines

By O. Belskaya
"Baikal Environmental Wave"

Dear fellow countrymen! I am addressing you because on our Mukhorshibir land — where my ancestors, just like many of yours, lived for more than 300 years, treasuring and loving as much as they could - there are plans to build an oil pipeline. I know that our district, like others in Buriatia, is facing economic and social problems. But at the mo-ment you still determine your own lives, and do not depend on any rich oligarchs. What will happen once the Oil Company Yukos takes over?
The oil pipeline will operate for a period of 25 years, after that, it will probably be taken out of service. What influence this is going to have on the environment, what will be destroyed during construction alone (before it starts op-erating!) in nature and lifestyles that have been formed throughout hundreds of years, nobody really knows. There al-ready is a sad enough example of the impact the Tugnuiskii coal mine on people's health, causing the Mukhorshibirksi district to have the highest rate of oncological cases.

What is the price of the decision, the price of the risk if the oil pipeline is built? What will Yukos bring to a land where people have been keeping their culture, their values for hundreds of years? One thing is for sure — they will not value what we have here. They will bring their "culture" of permissiveness, provided by tightly stuffed wallets, suspi-cion towards our, in their view, primitive way of life. But none of us will ever live as they do, because they sell re-sources that belong to all of us. And they offer you the chance to attend to their needs.
Think about it, do you really need to play a subordinate role, all of you — local authorities, entrepreneurs, the community. I know, that local enterprises are currently developing in the area — both private and state enterprises, and among them agricultural ones. They are producing local goods, the district is being administered by locals, people who grew up and bring up their children here. I assure you that all of this will change when Yukos appears. With that amount of money one can buy everything — power, or any enterprise. And no one will be able to compete with them! Do YOU want that to happen?
I would like to share my thoughts, information and my experience of dealing with the company Yukos with you. I am aware that this is my personal point of view, what I know, see and feel. But maybe it will help you to make your choice, to define and stand up for your position.

In spring 2002, the oil companies "Yukos" and "Transneft" drafted their projects for the construction of oil pipe-lines across Eastern Siberia (in the case of Transneft also to the Far East) to the countries of the Asian-Pacific-Region (APR).
Initially, these project were seen as alternatives — the northern route exiting onto the Okhotsk sea, planned by Transneft, and the southern route of Yukos, to the south of Baikal, exclusively for the economic needs of neighbouring China. But already on the Second Baikal Economic Forum (BEF), that took place in Irkutsk, 17th–20th September, both projects were acknowledged as "representing strategic state interests".
From the very beginning, the projects were shrouded in an aura of state significance. A number of intergovern-mental agreements were signed between Russia and China. Many participants of the process predicted that the question whether or not to construct the oil pipeline had already been decided at the top. Therefore it seemed senseless to show opposition to the project, despite the fact that the three routes for the oil pipeline to the west of the lake, pro-posed by Yukos, are in violation of the law.

According to one option, the pipeline was supposed to be constructed 20 km distance from Lake Baikal, which would mean that it would cross World Heritage territory. Its borders are safeguarded by the International Convention on the Preservation of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (adopted by the UNESCO General Conference on 23.11.1972, that Russia signed and ratified 12.10.1988. Lake Baikal was given the status of World Natural Heritage Site in December 1996). The other two options would take the oil pipeline across the territory of the Tunkinski Na-tional Park, which would violate the law "On specially protected natural territories", forbidding such construction.
Yukos is one of the largest oil companies, led by the 38-year-old billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovski. According to the magazine "Forbes", he ranks 101st in the list of the world's 497 billionaires and comes first in the list of Russia's seven billionaires. His personal wealth consists of 3,7 billion dollars.

Two years ago, oil giant Yukos bought the shares of the Angarsk petrochemical plant (ANHK), obviously with the aim of extending the major oil pipeline "Omsk-Angarsk" and getingt access to the Chinese market through the Baikal region. To be frank, Yukos' leaders did not set the easiest task before the designers and managers of such an ambitious project as the pipeline "Angarsk-Datsin". Especially in the light of the peculiarities of the Baikal region, whose natural wealth is widely acknowledged. However, the project violates environmental law, although the com-pany is, in its own words, very concerned about its image, especially with regard to the environment.
I am sure that the authorities, which give a green light to the project on almost all levels (hoping to receive un-precedented dividends and not particularly worried about the damage that it will cause, or simply carrying out deci-sions sent down "from above") "assess" the company from Nefteyugansk in their own way. It is no coincidence that Yukos was the main sponsor of the Baikal Economic Forum — an important political and economic event in the coun-try.
But now that the project's documents have been prepared and presented for public discussion in the Chita and Irkutsk regions and in Buryatia, the public can already draw some conclusions with respect to the question of whether the company is in line with its image of being "environmentally friendly".

The preparation of OVOS and access to information

About three months before the public hearing in the Irkutsk region, the NGO "Baikal Environmental Wave" ap-proached Yukos asking the company to present all necessary materials of the project's environmental impact assess-ment (OVOS). This would give independent experts the chance to assess whether the project's environmental impact assessment has been conducted properly, whether modern scientific means were used and whether all possible meth-ods of prevention of accidents and their elimination were taken into account.
A little bit of theory. According to Russian Law, project environmental impact assessment (OVOS) needs to be conducted for any project, and any citizen can have access to it, even more so if this activity has direct impact on him or herself. Of course, not every citizen wants to read through the multi-volume OVOS or can cope with the technical and scientific terms. In this matter, he can get the help of experts whom he trusts and invites himself, or of non-governmental environmental organisations, which he can address and ask to conduct an independent assessment.

It is the duty of the project's designers and owners to provide information in a complete and accessible manner to whoever wants it. In most cases, public libraries or other places with general access are used for this purpose.
Once he has acquainted himself with the material or received an expert's conclusion, the citizen has the right to express his opinion at public hearings, which the project's owners or local authorities are obliged to organise (and give notice of well in advance). During the public hearing, all speeches and opinions of the participants are fixed in a proto-col. If the two sides, for example the project's owners and the local people, do not agree on the project, a separate pro-tocol can be added defining the point of disagreement. All these documents are taken into account during the state en-vironmental impact assessment, which gives the final verdict — will the project be realised or not. Together with or before the state EIA, a citizen's environmental impact assessment can be conducted, and the state experts are obliged to consider its conclusions. This procedure is fixed by the law "On the protection of the environment" and by the by-law "Statute on OVOS". But reality shows that the owners, who are very interested in the project's realisation, find different ways to violate and avoid laws, sometimes even resort to bribery and fraud.
(There is too much at stake for them — a fortune of billions. But for us, for the society, there is no less at stake: the condition of our lands, the possibility to drink clean water and breathe fresh air, our children's and grandchildren's health, the right to live in a healthy environment, to live as we have ourselves chosen. The only way to defend our riches, our dignity, is to be active and on the alert, to stand up for our civil rights and the rights of our land).

That's exactly what happened in the case of Yukos! For several months, "Baikal Environmental Wave" corre-sponded both with the company's main office in Moscow and the regional branch of the company in Angarsk.
"Baikal Environmental Wave" insisted that all OVOS material should be presented to be studied by experts and to be made accessible to the public in the organisation's environmental library. However, Yukos sent all sorts of things (a shorted version of the project, excerpts from OVOS in the form of a "non-technical summary") but not the materials of the environmental impact assessment.
One had the impression that the project's owners did not even imagine that any citizen would take an interest in what happened to the project. The amount of public interest in the ten-volume OVOS completely hit them by surprise.
Going ahead I need to say that in the final of this almost detective-like story, "Baikal Environmental Wave" did after all receive the OVOS document, but… literally three days before the public hearing, moreover without graphic material, i.e. the map of the oil pipeline's route. (All ten OVOS volumes only reached the "BEW" a month after the public hearing in Angarsk, and that was only because the librarian of the Irkutsk regional administration went on holi-day for a month). Of course all of this made the experts' task more difficult, but nevertheless they prepared their as-sessment on the basis of part of the OVOS material, containing more than 20 serious criticisms of the project.
For example, they pointed out that the OVOS materials lack such important sections as: an analysis of possible accidents, an estimation of likely pollution of water bodies in the case of an accident, planned measures to clean up water bodies after an accident, assessment of damage done to water bodies as a consequence of the removal of water and the pollution, preservation of indigenous cultures, the cadastral characteristics of forest resources in the construc-tion zone and potential impact of the pipeline and others.

After examining the OVOS material, almost all experts (not just from the "Baikal Environmental Wave"), came to the conclusion that the company Yukos had economized on quality research and analytical work. Mikhail Grachev, director of the Limnological Institute Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SO RAN), pointed out that that for the preparation of OVOS, 30-year-old data was used. The project's designers from the St.Petersburg Sci-entific Research Institute preferred not to use the results of up-to-date research conducted by scientists of SO RAN (Irkutian and Buriatian scientific centres), but their own previous research, and for a different territorie, where they apparently had been working earlier! Thus, among the species of animals living in the Pribaikal region that will suffer from the oil pipeline, the OVOS authors named the forest marten, which is not to be found in Siberia!
After this, there is no way that one can believe the assertions of Yukos' representatives, that they know where they have come to and what they are going to do!

A revealing remark was dropped by Yuri Ivanov, member of Yukos' leading committee on the construction of the oil pipeline, at the public hearing in Angarsk. Pointing at a map of Europe, entangled in oil pipelines, Mr. Ivanov said: "Do you think they don't have their Baikals?"
It is understandable that Yukos' oil experts, arriving in the Baikal region, simply decided not to waste money on quality research. For them, all of this — OVOS, public hearings, environmental impact assessments - means unneces-sary formalities required by law. The main thing is that the "ok" is received from above and that a gigantic mechanism is launched to lobby for the project. For them, it is of no importance what consequences their project will confront us with. For them, we Siberians, especially simple country people, are people with whom they "from the centre" are used to looking down on. They cannot imagine how people can live off the gifts of the forest or off their own plots of land, and value sacred places, like the inhabitants of the Tunkinski valley. In their opinion, expressed, by the way, at public hearings in the Tunkinski Park, this is unworthy. In their opinion, a worthy life consists of having, I beg your pardon, your backside in a Mercedes, a rich villa and suite of pretty girls, a professional vocal group and other entertainers that accompanied the YUKOS team to the hearing in the Tunka valley, Petropavlovka and Mukhorshibir.

But, gentlemen, even if you build your oil pipeline, my fellow countrymen will not live that kind of life anyway. At best, maybe, few will get some work from you, truly, not highly qualified work, but as general labourers. High-qualified specialists will undoubtedly be imported by you from outside the region. But you do not even want to know what we will lose irretrievably because of all this. Moreover, the inflows into the local budget will not at all be as you like to paint them. This is the answer given by the deputy head of the Irkutsk regional administration, A.A. Rudik: "As to your enquiry, I can tell you the following: The Russian federal Tax Code does not make any provisions for tax de-ductions into the regional budget from the passing of an oil pipeline through regional territory." Maybe the Federal Treasury will, as you promise, be filled by billions of dollars, but how much of it will get into the regions, let alone districts? And taking everything into account, you do not seem particularly keen on paying for the damage, if you can-not even realistically estimate the environmental impact. That means, for all that you do, the locals will have to pay.
Public hearings

At the hearing in Angarsk, when the co-chairman of the "Baikal Environmental Wave", Jennie Sutton, presented the observations on the project made by BEW's experts, Yukos' chairman Ivanov could not hide his fury and irritation towards the public daring to create difficulties for them. But at the same time he could not come up with a single ar-gument to show that the public had done something wrong.
Instead, he commented on such things as the speaker's accent, and alluded to her foreign status and other such things. Though Mr. Ivanov himself is "newly arrived", or, more precisely, just stopping by, having come to Angarsk not in order to live and work there, but merely on a prolonged business trip to push through the project, unlike Jennie Sutton, who has lived in Siberia for 27 years and not just lives, but gives her whole life for the preservation of Siberia and Baikal!
Despite the long outpouring of words, Mr. Ivanov had to admit in the end that Yukos had failed to provide the public with all necessary information in a complete and accessible way, as required by the law. He promised to correct the negligence by providing regional and municipal libraries along the route of the oil pipeline with all OVOS vol-umes. However, in the run up to the hearings taking place in Mukhorshibir almost two months after those in Angarsk (enough time to fulfil his promise), only one out of ten OVOS volumes had made it to the Mukhorshibir district library. That way, again those who were interested could not get a full idea of the damage from the project.

At the Angarsk hearings, among those in favour of Yukos' project, almost unconditionally supporting it, were Yury Faleychik, deputy of the Irkutsk regional Legislative Assembly, Irina Dumova, chair of the department of eco-nomic and social problems in the presidium of SO RAN, and Anatoly Malevski, deputy head of the department of regional resources of the regional administration. To many people, their position seemed simply improper. As it turned out, as part of the delegation Dumova and Malevski had been taken to Slovakia to see a working oil pipeline that crosses the territory of a national park and forest reserves. The trip had been organized and paid for by Yukos. Upon return to their homeland, all participants of the delegation conveyed their enthusiasm on what they had seen at public hearings and in newspaper articles.
As you have already guessed, they were saying that "thanks to the modern technology of building and running an oil pipeline, it is perfectly possible for it to cross national parks." Obviously, this is a hint on the safety of oil pipes for the Tunkinski National Park. But for some reason, they seem to forget that controlling the running of an oil pipeline of 500 km length, and that in densely populated Europe, is a completely different matter from eliminating oil leaks in the spurs of the Sayan mountain range, where sometimes even a helicopter cannot get access because of mist. But these are apparently also trivialities, first we will build the oil pipeline, and then decide what to do with spills.
The public hearings in Angarsk left many in a state of perplexity and dissatisfaction. Despite the fact that there was quite a fair number of critical speeches on the project (not counting Yukos' presentation which took up two thirds of the hearing's time) the chairman's general conclusion — to acknowledge the project as expedient — came unexpect-edly for many. People were invited to sign the protocol and express their opinion on the project. However, not every-one had a written version of his or her speech with them, in particular formulated observations and conclusions. Many did not even understand that according to the organiser's scheme, everyone, agreeing or disagreeing with the project, was tarred with the same brush as saying "we approve". That is what they turned out to be — stage managers of a show, starring Yukos' representatives.

But in Kyren, administrative centre of the Tunka district and Tunkinskii national park, it seemed that the well-planned and polished set up, including a discussion of the project and approval on the part of locals, failed unexpect-edly. The battle around the protocol went on until almost 11 pm, while the hearing started at 10 am. People from small villages had brought along protocols including the opinions of their fellow villagers on the oil pipeline. They did not leave until they were convinced that all of these opinions were included in the final document, and demanded a "zero option" (i.e. rejection of the planned project).
To tell the truth, while the secretaries were busy drafting the electronic version of the protocol, Yukos' represen-tatives used the opportunity to "bring around" the trusting part of the people. That way, some ten statements from lo-cals were arranged in support of the oil pipeline. Strangely enough, their wording was almost identical, clearly having been dictated.

Zinaida Mitrofanovna Shvedova, a teacher from Zun-Murino, who made an emotional speech against the oil pipe-line at the public hearing and even read out her own poems on the subject, was "bribed" by Yukos with her "love of literature". They suggested to her to give the poems to them and at the same time to write an application asking to help solve problems "in the framework of a study of the environment in area of the planned oil pipeline". Even a car was made available especially for that purpose. Some people wrote an application just to go for a drive in a "cool" car.
And nevertheless the inhabitants of the Tunkinski valley stood up against the oil pipeline.
On the day before the public hearing in Kyren, representatives of the non-governmental organizations "Call of Arshan", "Sayani", "Mountainous Zakamna", inhabitants of the villages Dalahai, Ahalik, Elovka, Tori, Shuluti, Zun-Murino and the lamas of the Tunkinski district conducted their own discussions on the project. Yukos' representatives and the district administration did not want to recognize the protocols of these meetings. The authorities were not pleased by the fact that these meetings had been conducted not by order from above, but on public initiative.

However, after long debates, the protocols of the village meetings were defended, mainly thanks to the persis-tence and skills of the lawyer Nadezhda Haidurova and of the chairman of the Buriatian regional union on Baikal, Ser-gei Shapkhaev.
One can say that in our region (and not only here) the practice of conducting public hearings is now only begin-ning. And this is a powerful weapon in society's hands with the help of which people can stand up for their position, their opinion and to defend themselves from bad projects, because the protocol of the public discussion is exactly the "people's opinion", which should be presented in the state impact assessment. For this reason it is very important, who makes use of this weapon and how.
According to some observers, the public discussion of the oil pipeline project in Kyren is so far the only example of how these discussions should work and how the public should act. Twenty speeches from local people were fixed in the protocol, not counting those that spoke from their seats. Yukos' representatives were asked around 50 questions. By the way, at the beginning of the meeting, the Tunka people demanded the right to speak in their native language. It was obvious that after all this, Yukos' representatives did not feel so sure of themselves any more, especially when elderly people, emotionally gesticulating and loudly explaining something, addressed them in Buriat. As a result, the public succeeded in bringing into the protocol the following sentence, which will be taken into consideration in the state environmental impact assessment: "No single opinion in regard to the advisability of the project's realization could be agreed on. The opinions of the participants diverged. The larger part of the speakers stood up against the building of an oil pipeline across the territory of the Tunkinski National Park…"
By the way, Yukos' representatives seemed to be quite a united team, which no doubt has a good grasp of all the subtleties of jurisdiction in regard to the conduct of public hearings and could take advantage of weak spots or lack of knowledge and experience on the side of the local people and non-governmental organizations. But here, when society shows its strength and its knowledge, even Yukos cannot help feeling respect, if unwillingly and in a hidden way (unlike the badly hidden disrespect which they demonstrated in the Petropavlovki Dzhidincki district of Buriatia, in Angarks and in Mukhorshibiri!).

The PR-campaign accompanying the pushing through of the project, also among local people, deserves some ex-tra attention. A whole set of structures is working on this within Yukos. For the PR work of the oil pipeline "Angarsk-Datsin", the Moscow Group of the company AIDOS is in charge. They also provide the oil company with judicial, financial and organisational services. The Vice-President of AIDOS, Camille Husnetdinov, directed all public hearings that took place in the Baikal region. The work with the mass media (TV, radio, newspapers, electronic newsletters) was taken on board by a PR-service basing itself in Angarsk, led by Svetlana Batutene. One example will be enough to show in what relation this service stands to the founders and chief editors of different media. The day before the pub-lic hearing in Angarsk, the "Baikal Environmental Wave" wanted to inform the public and place material on its as-sessment of the oil pipeline project in the newspaper "Vostochno-Siberskaya Pravda". The honourable newspaper's deputy chief editor, Albert Batutis, suggested a charge of $550 for the publication, on the ground that Yukos pays for its publications, and the newspaper cannot afford to lose such a rich client. To the question whether the paper's readers know that all the material on the project is paid for as Yukos' advertisements, we received the answer:
"The headlines of such material is set up in special print, and there is a footnote about it at the end of the last column." The footnote is there indeed, but in such wretched print, that not every reader can decipher it without a magnifying glass. Apart from that, the majority of headlines of non-advertising material is set up in exactly the same or similar print. In consequence, it is hard for the reader to get a sense of what is and what is not advertisement. It seems that the editors themselves confuse their readers.
The editor of another very popular newspaper, after consulting its founders, also rejected the publication. He hon-estly admitted that the newspaper did not want to fall out with Yukos. Therefore, only two papers - the regional "Tribuna" and "Vremya" from Angarsk — agreed to publish the point of view of a non-governmental organisation as a counterweight to variations on the theme "hurrah for the oil pipeline!", which are printed constantly. Forgive me, but what can be said of the reader's right to objective information, if the position of such apparently public-political newspapers depends on the thickness of the wallet of some sponsors, preferring to remain unnoticed?
No doubt Yukos is a very powerful company, which probably defines not just the mass media's policies. And to some it may seem ridiculous and senseless for non-governmental organisations and local people to challenge it. But remember: "Where does strength lie, brother? Strength, brother, lies not in money, but in truth!" And on which side you can find the truth has already been demonstrated by the public hearings, the OVOS documents, the quality of preparation that even Yukos' money could not provide. Of course a lot of money can influence the results of the state environmental impact assessment. But here, the experts themselves have to choose: money or the truth!

Appendices to the Record of Proceedings of the Public Hearings on the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Proposed Construction of an Oil Pipeline from Angarsk (Rus-sia) to Dacin (China) (MS Word)

Translated by M.Kolar

Our partner and sponsor – Heinrich Boell Foundation

©Baikal Environmental Wave