The news of the recent oil spills from a pipeline in the Russian Arctic, (Komi region) just north of the town of Usinsk, focussed the world's attention on this area. Attention is not just on the environmental catastrophe, but also on the environmental and social costs of oil.
If the figures for the size of the spill released by the US Department of Energy (DoE) are correct, this would make it the third largest spill in history, following the Gulf war and Ixtoc 1 oil rig blow-out in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979. Russian authorities report much lower figures and they seem to be trying to play down the extent of the disaster. However, although the argument about the exact amount of oil spilt into the Artic forest tundra will continue, this is largely academic. The fact remains that thousands of tonnes of crude oil are causing widespread pollution in what should be a pristine Arctic wilderness.
The spills were the result of the appalling state of the oil industry infrastructure in this area and the continuing use of the system by both Russian and western oil companies. In fact, the people in the area and the environment have suffered for years from chronic oil pollution from old, corroded and poorly maintained and monitored pipelines. Blame clearly lies with the Russian authorities in allowing such lax environmental standards and with the Russian oil companies who both own and operate the pipeline. But responsibility also rests with those who use the pipeline and, since the break up of the Soviet Union, these include western multinational oil and gas companies.
However, these multinational companies have carefully engineered arrangements in Russia whereby they are able to abdicate any responsibility for spills. Through tax incentives and credit systems, they are able to earn profits regardless of whether the oil reaches a refinery or is spilt into the environment. This provides little incentive to improve the pipelines. These companies know very well the appalling state of the Russian oil infrastructure and, despite statements that one of the reasons they are operating in the area is to improve the infrastructure, they are, in fact, continuing to use it as it is.
Western oil companies have not engineered the comfortable arrangements on their own. Financial institutions like the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, all play their part in ensuring the highest profit for the least cost.
The lending institutions, oil companies and politicians involved in the Russian oil free-for-all have completely disregarded the direct environmental and human health damage of their activities. Furthermore, the economic opportunities and the environmental need, for energy demand management, including energy conservation and renewable energy supplies, are not considered. If these criteria were made priority for investment, it would ensure long-term environmental and economic security and reduce the direct pollution by spills.
Since the news of this spill broke, more information has come to light about the spills throughout the Russian oilfields. Last year, there was a 450,000 tonne spill in the north of the Tyumen region in Siberia; in 1989 there was a 500,000 tonne spill in the Southern Tyumen region. Spills under 10,000 tonnes are deemed too small to even register.
The direct environmental damage caused by oil spills is already too high a price to pay for reliance on oil. But the price is being paid by the global environment as oil's contribution to the build up of CO2 adds to the threat of climate change.
This report arose out of a visit to the Russian Arctic by a team from Greenpeace in response to the oil spill. It is a summary of the past two weeks' investigations into the multinationals operating in the Komi region. It is by no means an exhaustive study but raises a number of questions abut future western investment in the Russian oil and gas industry.