Registrierung Kalender Tigerforum-Chat Häufig gestellte Fragen Suche Mitgliederliste Moderatoren und Administratoren Statistik Database Galerie TopListe Glossar Startseite
Tigerforum » Raubkatzen & Wölfe » Leoparden » Öl-Pipeline bedroht die letzten Amur-Leoparden » Hallo Gast [registrieren|anmelden]
« Vorheriges Thema Nächstes Thema » Druckvorschau | An Freund senden | Thema abonnieren | Glossareintrag vorschlagen
Antwort erstellen Neues Thema erstellen
Autor
Beitrag [  «    1  2  3  4    »  ]
big-tiger
Tiger




Dabei seit: August 2005
Herkunft: Sachsen-Anhalt
Sachen-Anhalt (DE)
Beiträge: 163
big-tiger ist offline
  Antwort mit Zitat Beitrag editieren/löschen Nach weiteren Beiträge von  suchen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden        IP Adresse Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Es ist immer das gleiche, das verfluchte Geld und das verfluchte Öl. Wenn ich sowas höre geht mir immer der Hut hoch...
Aber was soll man machen? Das Geld scheint praktisch jeden ruhig zu stellen; die wenigen, bei denen das nicht so ist, reichen dann auch nicht mehr; und wahrscheinlich bleibt das solange so, bis man feststellt, dass Geld die Natur nicht ersetzen kann. Aber leider hat der Mensch die Angewohnheit, das Problem immer erst dann aufzugreifen, wenn es zu spät ist und die schlimmsten Folgen schon eingetreten sind...

07.09.2005, 15:49
Profil von Füge  deiner Freunde-Liste hinzu Email an big-tiger senden Schicke big-tiger eine ICQ-Nachricht MSN Passport: Tiger  
SirLeo
Sir Leo von Pard




Dabei seit: Juli 2004
Herkunft: Hipsterville
Berlin (DE)
Beiträge: 249
SirLeo ist offline
  Antwort mit Zitat Beitrag editieren/löschen Nach weiteren Beiträge von  suchen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden        IP Adresse Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Positiv, aber irgendwie doch wieder nicht:

Im August hatten Einwohner in diversen Städten entlang der Pipeline Route die Möglichkeit in Hearings (mir fällt nix gscheites auf Deutsch ein) ihre Argumente für und gegen die geplante Route vorzubringen.
Anschliessend konnte teilweise über die einzelnen Positionen abgestimmt werden, welche dann in die 2. Phase des Environmental Impact Assessment welches entscheidende Einflüsse auf den Bau oder nicht Bau an der geplanten Route hat.
In einigen Städten wurde klar dagegen gestimmt, in anderen wiederum klar dafür. Und jetzt kommts: Belegt ist, dass in einigen Städten nur über die Position der Offiziellen abgestimmt werden konnte (auf Unterschriftenbasis) und teilweise Bürgermeister mit dem Pipeline Betreiber Transneft immer wieder geheime Private Unterredungen hatten, und Wissenschaftler, Naturschützer usw. welche von der Regierung heran gezogen wurden, einfach mit Geld Mundtot gemacht wurden.... Da brauch ich anderweitige Manipulationen wohl eh nicht mehr erwähnen.

Auch der Herr Putin, hat sich schon zu Wort gemeldet, und alle Gegner einfach beschimpft, und gemeint sie würden durch ihren Wiederstand nur der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung Russlands im Wege stehn.

Bleibt der Fairness halber noch komprimiert zu sagen, dass es auch durchaus Offizielle gab, die sich darüber aufregten, was da von ihren Kollegen für ein Mist vorangetrieben wird.

in diesem Sinne..
Viel Spass beim Lesen:

-----

Pacific Oil Pipeline Update

Russian citizens speak out against proposed terminal site

Amur Leopard and Tiger Alliance (ALTA)
19 August 2005

On August 15 the citizens of Primorsky Krai expressed their opinion about the Pacific Pipeline Project at public hearings. The majority of the hearing participants support the project, but strongly oppose the proposed oil terminal location on the Amur Bay.

Two separate hearings were held in Primorsky Krai; one in the Krai’s capital Vladivostok, and one in Slavyanka, the capital of the Khasan district where Russia’s oil pipeline monopolist Transneft proposes
to build the terminal. A large majority of the 200 participants in Vladivostok spoke out against siting the terminal at Perevoznaya on the Amur Bay opposite Vladivostok. Not a single person of the more than 100 participants in Slavyanka spoke out in favour of siting the terminal in their district. The results of the hearings will be taken into account in the 2nd stage of the official Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project. The project can not be implemented without a favourable EIA result.

Court ruled that the pipeline project EIA is invalid

Recently a court in Khabarovsk ruled that the first stage of the official Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is invalid due to many irregularities and violations of Russian laws during the EIA process. As a result the decree by Prime Minister Fradkov to build the pipeline from Taishet to Perevoznaya has lost its legal grounds. The same is true for the hearings. The NGOs therefore do not accept the events as official
hearings, but see them as an unofficial exchange of opinions.

Presentations against the Perevoznaya-option

A large and diverse group spoke out against Perevoznaya at the Vladivostok hearing. Presentations were made by environmental NGOs, the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Science, two members of the local parliament, the Krai’s fishery committee and several individual citizens. In Slavyanka many people addressed the hearing participants, but not a single person said anything in support of the proposed terminal at Perevoznaya. The mayor of Slavyanka supported his citizens and made a very convincing speech. A local scientist showed a secret, illegal agreement that he had laid his hands on. This agreement between Primorsky Krai governor Darkin and Transneft to build the terminal
at Perevoznaya was signed in 2002, long before alternative terminal sites were compared and evaluated.
The document proves that alternative sites were never given any serious consideration.

Arguments against Perevoznaya

The participants at the hearings pointed out that Perevoznaya on the Amur Bay is the worst possible spot, because it is large, open and shallow. The terminal is to be built 2 km offshore where it will be exposed from all sides to high waves and frequent storms. Tankers will need to navigate through a string of islands to reach the terminal. As a result the risks of accidents resulting in spills are up to 17 times higher than if an alternative site is selected near Nakhodka, the region’s largest port. The circumstances in the Amur Bay would make it impossible to control oil spills and a spill would do much more damage than at other sites.
Fifteen percent of Russia’s endangered species occur only in the vicinity of the proposed terminal site. The site is in the habitat of the last 30 Amur leopards and near protected areas, including Kedrovaya Pad, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Vladivostok, the region’s largest city is opposite the terminal site. The most popular tourists resorts and sand beaches in the Russian Far East, visited by ten thousands of
tourists annually, and Russia’s only marine reserve, are also located nearby on the same bay.

Presentations in support of Perevoznaya

At the Vladivostok hearing, the mayor of the municipality where the proposed terminal site is located spoke out in favour of siting it at Perezovnaya. The terminal would bring jobs to his village he argued.
This is not a convincing argument in favour of Perevoznaya, because the terminal will bring jobs irrespective of the selected site. One staff member of a local NGO also supported the proposed site. He put forward tha Transneft would need to make considerable compensation payments, because of the substantial damage to the rich local biodiversity. This money could be used to improve the ecological situation.


__________________
Es sind immer nur Kleinigkeiten

06.09.2005, 23:27
Profil von Füge  deiner Freunde-Liste hinzu Email an SirLeo senden  
SirLeo
Sir Leo von Pard




Dabei seit: Juli 2004
Herkunft: Hipsterville
Berlin (DE)
Beiträge: 249
SirLeo ist offline
  Antwort mit Zitat Beitrag editieren/löschen Nach weiteren Beiträge von  suchen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden        IP Adresse Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Fortsetzung

Efforts to manipulate the hearing results

Hearings take place along the whole pipeline route. The hearing procedures are not announced in advance and questions about procedures are usually not answered. This makes it possible to manipulate the results by selecting procedures that are most favourable for Transneft. For example; at the end of a hearing near Irkutsk (that went favourable for Transneft) a protocol text sumarizing the results was put to a vote. In contrast, at the Vladivostok hearing a vote to choose between two poposed protocol text (one suggested by the chairman and one suggested by participants) was not allowed. Instead of allowing a vote, the chairman invited participants who wanted to sign his protocol to come forward, the rest of the participants he ordered to leave!
The Vladivostok hearing started at 10.00 AM on a Monday, and as a result many people could not participate because they had to work. A large group of uniformed guards at the entrance created a grim
atmosphere. The participants had to identify themselves. This had not been announced and was not required at the previous hearing, a year earlier. The chairman Vladimir Simonenok, Head of the Energy
Department of the Primorsky Krai administration, introduced the few speakers supporting Perevoznaya warmly and in detail. It was clear that the administration and Transneft had arranged these presentations. It is surprising that no one supported Transneft at the hearing in the Khasan district, in spite of the
considerable efforts and energy that the company spent to influence public opinion in the district. It promised to clean the Khasan beaches, build roads and provide jobs. Transneft even opened office in the
building of the district administration. In a room next to the head of the administration, people were offered jobs at the terminal in exchange for support at the hearing.
In the weeks before the hearings governor Darkin and Transneft had private meetings with representatives of the NGOs and scientific community opposing a terminal on the Amur Bay. Darkin appeared surprised and worried by the information that the local scientists provided about Perevoznaya.
He claimed that he had not known that more suitable sites exist. Darkin blamed a Transneft representative for not bringing the risks of Perevoznaya to his attention. He stated he did not object against selecting an alternative location. He even offered to present the arguments against Perevoznaya to the government organisations responsible for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project.
Transneft president Vainshtok took similar steps. He invited WWF to his office in Moscow and told that he had fired the head of the Transneft projecting organisation responsible for selecting Perevoznaya. He held this person responsible for the incorrect information that Transneft distributed on Perevoznaya (such as an information sheet describing Perevoznaya as a deep, secluded bay, instead of as a shallow, slightly curved coast which it is in reality). Vainshtok suggested continued consultations with WWF and scientists to discuss possible changes in the project design that would diminish the environmental impact.
The hearings (and the intensified pro-Perevoznaya propaganda in the local media in the week before the hearings) prove that the Primorsky Krai administration and Transneft have in reality not changed their
position and still want to build the terminal at Perevoznaya. The dialogue with WWF and scientists is probably no more than a smokescreen and an effort to weaken the opposition. Fortunately, the majority of the environmental community did not fall into the trap.
Confusing endings to the hearings
Both hearings ended in turmoil. The chairmen read out a protocol text that was supposed to describe the results of the hearing. The texts did not mention that the participants oppose a terminal on the Amur Bay!
The same thing happened at the previous hearing in Vladivostok in July 2004 and the local NGOs had learned from this experience. They had selected a spokesman (Sergei Bereznuk of Phoenix Fund) and
had prepared an alternative protocol text. However, the chairman of the Vladivostok hearing refused to put the two versions to a vote. In Khasan a vote took place and the result could not have been clearer:
nobody supported the chairman’s protocol. Instead, almost everybody supported the protocol that had been read out by Sergei Bereznuk. However, the chairmen at both hearings refused to accept the
protocols prepared by the NGOs as the official hearing result. Finally, at both hearings, the majority of participants signed documents stating that they disagreed with the protocol suggested by the chairmen
and agreed with the protocol prepared by the NGOs.

Lake Baikal

At both hearings Transneft hang a map of the proposed pipeline route on one of the walls. The map showed an illegal route passing Lake Baikal at less than one mile. However, the official route approved
by the responsible Russian authorities passes Lake Baikal at 80 km, outside the lake’s watershed.

President Putin accusing environmentalists

President Putin recently criticised Russian environmentalists for creating obstacles to projects essential for Russia’s economic development. He accused the NGOs involved of being financed by “competitors”.
President Putin used the Pacific Pipeline Project as his main example.
The criticism is not justified. The vast majority of NGOs do not oppose the Pacific Pipeline project, but only the proposed choice of terminal site. Many alternative sites are more suitable, from economic and
social perspectives as well as from an ecological perspective. The NGOs have substantiated their opinion with sound scientific data. In doing so, they have acted in Russia’s best long-term interests.
Switching to a different terminal site may cause a delay in the project’s implementation. However, NGOs and scientists have pointed at the risks of Perevoznaya from the start. A delay would have been avoided
if Transneft and the responsible authorities had abided by the law and based their selection on a sound comparative study of alternative terminal sites (as the law requires). It is unfair to blame NGOs and
scientists for a possible delay that is in fact the result of the shortcomings of Transneft and the Russian authorities.
The accusation that “competitors” pay scientists and NGOs to oppose the proposed terminal site has no grounds whatsoever. The only parties that could potentially gain from the selection of a different
terminal site are the owners of the existing Nakhodka oil ports. The main owner is Rosneft, like Transneft, a state-owned company. Neither Rosneft nor any other company has provided support for the
opposition against a terminal at Perevoznaya.

Possible involvement of British Petroleum
BBC reported that TNK-BP is interested in assisting in the building the terminal. The oil firm, 50% owned by British Petroleum, has confirmed sending a low-key delegation on a fact-finding mission to Primorsky Krai in June 2005. A TNK-BP spokesman told the BBC that he was aware of the controversy concerning the terminal location.

-----
Quelle: CarnivoreConservation.org


__________________
Es sind immer nur Kleinigkeiten

06.09.2005, 23:25
Profil von Füge  deiner Freunde-Liste hinzu Email an SirLeo senden  
SirLeo
Sir Leo von Pard




Dabei seit: Juli 2004
Herkunft: Hipsterville
Berlin (DE)
Beiträge: 249
SirLeo ist offline
  Antwort mit Zitat Beitrag editieren/löschen Nach weiteren Beiträge von  suchen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden        IP Adresse Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Die grösste Unterart der Leos sind/waren so in dem Eck Türkei, Iran zuhause. Panthera pardus tulliana wenn ich mich nicht irre. Sie sind etwas grösser als der P.p. panthera, und wiegen etwa bis zu 90kg. Und da es keinen wirklich gesicherten Nachweis für eine "noch-Existenz" dieser Unterarten, also tulliana und panthera gibt, ist deine Verwirrung schon berechtigt, dann ist nämlich der Amur Leopard der grösste.


__________________
Es sind immer nur Kleinigkeiten

19.08.2005, 15:46
Profil von Füge  deiner Freunde-Liste hinzu Email an SirLeo senden  
Moccaprinz
Tiger




Dabei seit: Februar 2005
Herkunft: München

Beiträge: 547
Moccaprinz ist offline
  Antwort mit Zitat Beitrag editieren/löschen Nach weiteren Beiträge von  suchen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden        IP Adresse Zum Anfang der Seite springen

ich bin grad etwas verwirrt ... ich dachte der amur-leopard sei die größte unterart des leoparden

welche unterart ist die größte unterart des leoparden, weisst du das zufällig? und kennst du die größe/gewicht? merci

mocca


__________________
Pakistans letzte Leoparden

19.08.2005, 14:01
Profil von Füge  deiner Freunde-Liste hinzu Email an Moccaprinz senden Homepage von Moccaprinz  
SirLeo
Sir Leo von Pard




Dabei seit: Juli 2004
Herkunft: Hipsterville
Berlin (DE)
Beiträge: 249
SirLeo ist offline
  Antwort mit Zitat Beitrag editieren/löschen Nach weiteren Beiträge von  suchen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden        IP Adresse Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Spät, aber trotzdem um deine Frage zu beantworten:

Der Amur Leopard ist in etwa das Mittelding zwischen Nordafrikanischen und "Südafrikanischen" Leopard. Sie wiegen in etwa zwischen 30 und 50kg, Kopfrumpflänge c.a. 110 bis 140cm, und Schulterhöhe zwischen 65 und 80cm. Bei flüchtiger Betrachtung könnte man sie für Nordafrikanische Leoparden halten, da sie ebenfalls ein sehr dickes (sogar noch dickeres) Fell wie der P.p.panthera haben, jedoch sind sie nicht annähernd so gross.

Ich hoff das reicht dir fürs erste


__________________
Es sind immer nur Kleinigkeiten

19.08.2005, 13:43
Profil von Füge  deiner Freunde-Liste hinzu Email an SirLeo senden  
Moccaprinz
Tiger




Dabei seit: Februar 2005
Herkunft: München

Beiträge: 547
Moccaprinz ist offline
  Antwort mit Zitat Beitrag editieren/löschen Nach weiteren Beiträge von  suchen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden        IP Adresse Zum Anfang der Seite springen

endlich mal was erfreuliches ... wie groß werden eigentlich diese leoparden? hast du zahlen dazu?

pace mocca ...


__________________
Pakistans letzte Leoparden

05.08.2005, 15:44
Profil von Füge  deiner Freunde-Liste hinzu Email an Moccaprinz senden Homepage von Moccaprinz  
SirLeo
Sir Leo von Pard




Dabei seit: Juli 2004
Herkunft: Hipsterville
Berlin (DE)
Beiträge: 249
SirLeo ist offline
  Antwort mit Zitat Beitrag editieren/löschen Nach weiteren Beiträge von  suchen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden        IP Adresse Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Es gibt wieder was über und für die Leoparden im Fernen Osten. Nicht viel, dafür aber mehr oder weniger erfreulich.

Beobachtungen mit Kamerafallen zufolge hat sich die Population der Amur Leoparden wieder "etwas erholt", und man schätzt sie nun auf etwa 40 Induvidien. Des weiteren werden auch immer öfter Leos auf der chinesischen Seite des Amur Gebiets gesichtet. Das spricht wenigstens etwas für die Leoparden, sollte die geplante Pipeline so gebaut werden wie man es vor hat.

Ferner hat die BBC einen kurzen Bericht über die Pipeline Sache und die Leoparden gesendet, was nun endlich mal auch die Breite Masse des Westems darauf aufmerksam macht. Obs was hilft sei mal dahingestellt.. Er ist hier zu sehn.

Noch was für alle Faulen, die aber trotzdem nicht unbeteiligt sein möchten:
Hier habt ihr die Möglichkeit mit ein paar Mausklicks und Tastenanschlägen einen Muster- oder eigenen Brief in Form einer Email oder eines Faxes an die Herren Putin und Koizumi zu schicken, und euere Bedenken zum Pipeline Projekt zu äussern.

Des wars auch schon, danke!


__________________
Es sind immer nur Kleinigkeiten

05.08.2005, 15:34
Profil von Füge  deiner Freunde-Liste hinzu Email an SirLeo senden  
Magdalene
(Gast)




Dabei seit:
Herkunft:
Beiträge:
Antwort mit Zitat Beitrag editieren/löschen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden        IP Adresse Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Ich finde es einfach unfair, das diese Wunderschönen Tiere wegen solch unsinnigem Zeug aussterben (zumindest in freier Wildbahn).
Sie könnten diese Pipeline doch auch einen anderen Weg leiten. Es müssen für so eine einfache sache doch nicht so majestätische Tiere sterben!

18.06.2005, 17:27
 
SirLeo
Sir Leo von Pard




Dabei seit: Juli 2004
Herkunft: Hipsterville
Berlin (DE)
Beiträge: 249
SirLeo ist offline
  Antwort mit Zitat Beitrag editieren/löschen Nach weiteren Beiträge von  suchen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden        IP Adresse Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Jetzt gibts endlich positive Bewegung, die UNESCO schaltet sich ein. Aber wenn man sich den Text durchliest, sieht man mal wieder was auf Geld besierende Beziehungen zweischen zwei Länder für Wirkungen haben. Es wird einfach immer lächerlicher das genze rumgehample um diese Pipeline. Auch wenns nicht wirklich zum lachen ist.

-----

Amur Leopard and Tiger Alliance (ALTA)
Pacific Pipeline Update June 2005

­UNESCO objects to terminal on Amur Bay

Terminal at Perevoznaya increases likelihood of accidents 17 times

The Far East branch of the Russian Academy of Science recently organised a press conference in co-operation with WWF Russian Far East and Phoenix Fund. According to the Academy of Science the risks of a major accident with the oil tankers travelling to and from the Perevoznaya terminal will be 17 times higher than if a terminal site near Nakhodka is selected. The sea is shallow at Perevoznaya and as a result the terminal has to be built almost 2 km offshore. Oil spills in open sea at 2 km from the coast are impossible to contain and currents will quickly spread the oil over a large area. Oil spills will threaten the nearby beaches visited by tens of thousands tourists annually as well as the coasts of Vladivostok located opposite of the terminal on the Amur Bay. As a result an accident in the Amur Bay near Perevoznaya will do 4 times more damage than a similar accident near Nakhodka. Transneft and the Primorsky Krai administration claim that many alternative terminal locations have been compared and that Perevoznaya always came out best, both from an economic and environmental perspective. However, Transneft has refused to publish reports that substantiate these claims. The reports The risk that an accident like this will happen increases 17 from the Russian Academy of Science, times if Perevoznaya is selected. With 500 tankers visiting in contrast, are available on internet: the terminal annually, a major catastroph is almost certain www.wwfrfe.ru/files/ocenka.zip and to happen sooner or later. (picture from a presentation by www.phoenix.vl.ru/ru/index.htm Sergei Moninets of the Sea Protection Institute, (unfortunately, presently the reports are Vladivostok) only available in Russian).
In spite of the apparent risks and environmental damage Transneft continues to promote Perevoznaya as terminal location and wants to start building as soon as possible. Transneft gave a presentation
about the pipeline project to the Primorsky Krai parliament and organised a trip for a delegation of parliamentarians to an oil terminal on the Baltic coast on the other side of Russia. The pipeline project was discussed in parliament on 25 May 2005 and the parliamentarians decided not to object to a terminal at Perevoznaya. Scientists of the Russian Academy of Science who wanted to provide information about the risks involved in a terminal at Perevoznaya were not given an opportunity to
address the parliamentarians.

Khabarovsk court suspends favourable conclusions of pipeline EIA

A Khabarovsk court decided to investigate complaints about irregularities during the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Pacific Pipeline Project. NGOs have complained, among other things, that Transneft has not made project documentation available, that public hearings were not announced properly and that alternative routes and terminal locations have not been given proper consideration.
The conclusions of the EIA were favourable for the project, but the court decided that the conclusions are suspended during the investigations that will take an indefinite amount of time. The court ruling means that the decree of Prime Minister Fradkov on 31 December 2004 to build the Pacific Pipeline from Taishet to Perevoznaya has lost its legal grounds. Suspension of the decree itself is now a possibility, but this would require a separate court ruling.

UNESCO objects against a terminal at Perevoznaya

A terminal at Perevoznaya poses a threat to 2 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. The Kedrovaya Pad Biosphere Reserve is home to the Amur leopard, with a remaining population of 30 individuals
probably the world's rarest big cat. The second Biosphere Reserve is Russia's only marine reserve, located on the Amur Bay close to the tanker routes to and from Perevoznaya.
The Russian UNESCO Man and Biosphere Committee has advised the Ministry of Natural Resources not to allow a terminal to be built on the Amur Bay. The ministry is responsible for a final EIA
(Environmental Impact Assessment) that is presently conducted of the pipeline and One of the 30 Amur leopards remaining in the wild. The photo was the proposed terminal on the made with a camera-trap. A second camera-trap is visable on the Amur Bay. tree behind the leopard (photo courtesy WCS).
The Primorsky Krai branch of the ministry has publicly objected to a terminal on the Amur Bay. However, many fear that the ministry
will not oppose the strong pro-Perevoznaya forces that include Transneft, governor Darkin and his Primorsky Krai administration.
A recent article in the Moscow Times describes that Darkin wanted to force oil transfer companies in Nakhodka into bankruptcy in order to acquire their assets. According to the article Darkin only started to promote Perevoznaya as terminal location after his attempts to get a foothold in the Nakhodka oil business failed.

Decision to build the pipeline in 2 stages

Russia's Industry and Energy minister Viktor Khristenko has announced that the Pacific Pipeline will be built in two stages. During the first stage the terminal will be built at Perevoznaya on the Amur Bay and the first half of the pipeline from central Siberia to Skovorodino, close to the Chinese border.
During the second stage the pipeline will be extended to the Sea of Japan and linked to the terminal at Perevoznaya. Oil will be transported by rail to Perevoznaya until the pipeline has been completed.

No western and Japanese funding for the first stage

Transneft recently secured a $US 250 million project loan from western private banks for the Baltic pipeline project. However, it came as no surprise that Transneft does not solicit project funding for the 1st stage of the Pacific Pipeline project from public and private banks from developed countries.
Transneft considers building the pipeline at less than 1 mile from Lake Baikal and the pipeline will cross the lake's main tributary. Shell's offshore pipeline at Sakhalin threatened 1 population of rare
Grey whales, but a terminal of the Pacific Pipeline at Perevoznaya would threaten 50 endangered species that occur only in the vicinity of the proposed terminal location. As a result of the enormous environmental damage, the first stage of the project stands no chance of passing the environmental assessments of banks from developed countries. However, Transneft can solicit funding for the second stage. Once the terminal has been built, Transneft and the banks can argue that the additional damage resulting from linking the terminal to the pipeline will be marginal.

Japan parties refuse a dialogue

A terminal at Perevoznaya is not in Japan's interest.
Oil spills in the Amur Bay threaten spawning grounds that are important for both the Russian and the Japanese fishing industries. Japan has suffered from spills from tankers transporting oil from Primorsky Krai to Japan. A terminal at Perevoznaya creates two large oil export ports in Primorsky Region, rather than one. Focusing investment on Nakhodka would make it possible to improve safety standards there, thus decreasing overall risk for Japan.
Unfortunately, Japan does not object to a terminal on the Amur Bay. The topic is so sensitive, that Japanese parties have refused to discuss the environmental aspects of oil infrastructure projects with Russian environmentalists and scientists. As many as 40 NGOs signed a petition requesting the Japanese Prime Minister and his cabinet to urge Russia not to build the terminal on the Amur Bay. No answer was received. The Japanese public bank JBIC has stated that it can not discuss the Pacific Pipeline and related oil projects with Russian scientists and other "third parties" until it has received official loan requests for these projects. However, JBIC representatives participated in the Japanese business delegation that visited the proposed terminal site at Perevoznaya in April 2005. The Krai officials and private Japanese companies that accompanied JBIC on this trip are also "third parties". It is ridiculous to suppose that the participants did not discuss the projects during the 6-hour drive to and from the terminal location. ROTOBO (the Japanese Association for trade with Russia and Europe) first promised to provide contact data of the Japanese participants, but it withdrew its offer after the companies objected to having their contact data made available.
A positive exception is the Mizuho Corporate Bank. Mizuho is Japan's largest bank and the only Japanese signatory party to the "Equator Principles". These principles are environmental guidelines
for project financing by private banks. One of the guidelines is that projects financed by private banks should meet the same environmental conditions as projects financed by the World Bank. Mizuho participated in the business delegations to Primorsky Krai and has provided financing for other pipeline projects of Transneft, but the bank does not want to disclose if it has concrete plans for
participation in projects at Perevoznaya. However, Mizuho is willing to meet and discuss the environmental aspects of oil infrastructure projects in Primorsky Krai with Russian environmentalists and scientists when an opportunity arises during a future trip to Russia.

Phoenix Fund


__________________
Es sind immer nur Kleinigkeiten

17.06.2005, 11:20
Profil von Füge  deiner Freunde-Liste hinzu Email an SirLeo senden  
[  «    1  2  3  4    »  ]   « Vorheriges Thema Nächstes Thema » Standard | Brettstruktur | Baumstruktur
Antwort erstellen Neues Thema erstellen
Gehe zu:

Powered by: Burning Board 1.1.1 © 2001 WoltLab GbR
Code-, Style- und Templateanpassung © 2004 by Sesshoumaru
Seitenabrufe pro Tag im Durschschnitt: 14744.89
.: Kontakt :. | .: Impressum / Disclaimer :.