Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Pipeline · Russia · 2005–2008

ESPO oil pipeline rerouted away from the Baikal shore (2006)

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured. Disputed
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 1 not disclosed · 2 not measured · 6 disputed See the gaps
Accounts of the harm differ
State ecological expertise of the pipeline route
  • Government and regulators Ministry of Natural Resources (November 2005): Objected that the route ran 800 m from the shore, while the previously approved route lay outside the catchment. Lenta.ru
  • Government and regulators State ecological expertise commission (Kommersant): Negative conclusion on 24 January 2006; after enlargement by 34 experts it voted 58 for and 26 against, and Rostekhnadzor signed the positive conclusion on 3 March 2006. Kommersant Vlast
  • Press and investigations RFE/RL: The state environmental watchdog had endorsed the plan to lay the pipe less than a kilometre from the shore shortly before the decision. RFE/RL
Risk of oil reaching Lake Baikal
  • Company or project Transneft (Vainshtok, 26 April 2006): Modelling put the maximum oil reaching the central ecological zone at no more than 170 kg; the solutions fully ruled out oil entering the lake. Kremlin
  • Government and regulators President Putin (26 April 2006): Even a tiny share of danger of polluting Baikal had to be excluded, not minimised. Kremlin
  • Communities and civil society Greenpeace Russia, IFAW Russia and WWF Russia: Prepared a study of the pipeline's harm for Transneft's potential lenders; its content is not on record. Lenta.ru

On 26 April 2006 President Vladimir Putin ordered Transneft to move the East Siberia–Pacific Ocean (ESPO) oil pipeline north of the Lake Baikal catchment, after a route about 800 m from the northern shore had received a positive state ecological expertise conclusion. Putin later put the extra cost at an additional $1 billion.

$1 billionExtra cost of the reroute, as stated by the President
Statement by President Putin on 25 October 2006; the first-stage cost is reported in different units and amounts by different sources.

Status As of 2008 (latest source): the first-stage route Taishet–Ust-Kut–Lensk–Aldan–Skovorodino was approved by the Prime Minister in February 2008, with the first-stage cost reported at $11.2bn.

What?
On 26 April 2006 President Putin ordered Transneft's ESPO oil pipeline moved north of the Lake Baikal catchment, away from a route about 800 m from the northern shore that had received a positive state ecological expertise conclusion on 3 March 2006. Kremlin
Where?
Northern shore of Lake Baikal (original route), later Taishet–Ust-Kut–Lensk–Aldan–Skovorodino. Kommersant
When?
Objection 11 November 2005; expertise 24 January and 3 March 2006; decision 26 April 2006; construction start 28 April 2006; cost statement 25 October 2006; route approval February 2008. Kommersant Vlast
Who?
Gained
  • Oil companies — According to Putin, they could save on auxiliary routes as a result of the new route Kremlin
Lost
  • Transneft — Carried the additional cost of the reroute, put by President Putin at $1 billion Kremlin
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Putin said that even a tiny share of danger of polluting Baikal had to be excluded. Transneft had said its solutions fully ruled out oil entering the lake. Kremlin
How?
The President decided at a regional meeting in Tomsk after the Russian Academy of Sciences vice-president proposed routing along the watersheds; the Prime Minister approved the final route in February 2008. Kremlin
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

The pipeline route originally approved ran along the northern shore of Lake Baikal, about 800 m from the water (Kremlin transcript; Lenta.ru). On 11 November 2005 the Ministry of Natural Resources objected that the route ran 800 m from the shore, while the previously approved route lay outside the catchment. The state ecological expertise commission issued a negative conclusion on 24 January 2006; in early March the commission was enlarged by 34 experts and voted 58 for and 26 against, and on 3 March 2006 Rostekhnadzor head Konstantin Pulikovsky signed the positive conclusion (Kommersant). On 9 March 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the government's resolution of 31 December 2004 on the pipeline.

At a meeting in Tomsk on 26 April 2006, Transneft head Semyon Vainshtok said the Baikal water-protection zone was 500 metres and the pipeline could be moved a further 300 metres, to 800 metres from the lake. He said modelling put the maximum oil reaching the central ecological zone at no more than 170 kilograms "if something improbable happens", and that Transneft's solutions fully ruled out oil entering the lake. Russian Academy of Sciences vice-president Nikolai Laverov proposed routing the pipeline along the watersheds, and Putin asked whether a northern route was technically possible. Putin then ordered that the pipeline pass north of the Baikal catchment line. Construction started on 28 April 2006.

On 25 October 2006, in a televised Hot Line, Putin said the change in route would cost an additional $1 billion. On the day of the decision Vainshtok had said he was unable to say how many kilometres the pipeline would lengthen or how much more it would cost. Kommersant reported in 2008 that the first-stage cost rose from $6.65 billion to $11.2 billion and the route became about 500 km longer, without attributing the whole increase to the reroute.

The final first-stage route ran Taishet–Ust-Kut–Lensk–Aldan–Skovorodino and was approved by Prime Minister Viktor Zubkov in February 2008. Transneft set up a subsidiary, the ESPO Project Management Centre, in Angarsk; Krasnodarstroitransgaz and China Petroleum Pipeline Bureau also worked on the project. Kommersant (2008) reported a hepatitis A outbreak among 24 workers on the final route, an emergency regime in the Neryungri district and a criminal case.

  1. 2005Ministry of Natural Resources objected to the route 800 m from the shore (11 Nov)
  2. 2006Negative expertise conclusion (24 Jan); enlarged commission voted 58–26; positive conclusion signed (3 Mar); Supreme Court upheld the 2004 government resolution (9 Mar); Putin ordered the reroute at Tomsk (26 Apr); construction started (28 Apr); Putin stated the extra cost (25 Oct)
  3. 2008Route approved by Prime Minister Zubkov (February); Kommersant reported first-stage cost of $11.2bn

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

“The Baikal water-protection zone is now 500 metres. We have moved as far as possible, another 300 metres. So we can be 800 metres from Baikal”

Semyon Vainshtok, head of Transneft · 26 April 2006 · translated from Russian · Kremlin

“Our solutions fully rule out oil entering Lake Baikal”

Semyon Vainshtok, head of Transneft · 26 April 2006 · translated from Russian · Kremlin

“The pipeline system… must pass beyond the catchment line, north of Lake Baikal's catchment line”

Vladimir Putin, President · 26 April 2006 · translated from Russian · Kremlin

“If there is even a tiny share… of danger of polluting Baikal, then we… must do everything not to minimise that danger but to exclude it”

Vladimir Putin, President · 26 April 2006 · translated from Russian · Kremlin

“the change in the pipeline route will cost us an additional $1 billion… the oil companies will thus be able to save on auxiliary routes. Overall, the costs are not so huge, and we will preserve Lake Baikal”

Vladimir Putin, President · 25 October 2006 · Kremlin

“I cannot say by how many kilometers the pipeline will be lengthened and how much more it will cost”

“We were totally convinced that the route we proposed, which was much shorter, was totally safe.”

“Transneft's reaction is extremely positive, as this finally means a line has been drawn under the issue.”

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

State ecological expertise of the pipeline route
Government and regulators
Ministry of Natural Resources (November 2005)

Objected that the route ran 800 m from the shore, while the previously approved route lay outside the catchment.

Lenta.ru
Government and regulators
State ecological expertise commission (Kommersant)

Negative conclusion on 24 January 2006; after enlargement by 34 experts it voted 58 for and 26 against, and Rostekhnadzor signed the positive conclusion on 3 March 2006.

Kommersant Vlast
Press and investigations
RFE/RL

The state environmental watchdog had endorsed the plan to lay the pipe less than a kilometre from the shore shortly before the decision.

RFE/RL
Risk of oil reaching Lake Baikal
Company or project
Transneft (Vainshtok, 26 April 2006)

Modelling put the maximum oil reaching the central ecological zone at no more than 170 kg; the solutions fully ruled out oil entering the lake.

Kremlin
Government and regulators
President Putin (26 April 2006)

Even a tiny share of danger of polluting Baikal had to be excluded, not minimised.

Kremlin
Communities and civil society
Greenpeace Russia, IFAW Russia and WWF Russia

Prepared a study of the pipeline's harm for Transneft's potential lenders; its content is not on record.

Lenta.ru
First-stage cost of the pipeline
Government and regulators
Transneft head Vainshtok at Tomsk (Kremlin transcript)

First stage, in second-quarter 2004 prices: 6,650 million rubles.

Kremlin
Press and investigations
Lenta.ru (2006)

$6.6 billion for the first stage and $11.5 billion in total.

Lenta.ru
Press and investigations
Kommersant (2008)

First-stage cost rose from $6.65 billion to $11.2 billion and the route became about 500 km longer.

Kommersant
Government and regulators
President Putin (25 October 2006)

The change in route would cost an additional $1 billion.

Kremlin
Distance the route was moved
Press and investigations
Oil & Gas Journal and RFE/RL

More than 40 km.

Oil & Gas Journal
Press and investigations
Lenta.ru, quoting Putin

Maybe 200 km north.

Lenta.ru
Press and investigations
Kommersant (2008)

About 500 km longer in total.

Kommersant

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • Transneft told the meeting that modelling put the maximum oil reaching the central ecological zone at no more than 170 kilograms and that its solutions fully ruled out oil entering the lake.
    Transneft (Semyon Vainshtok), 26 April 2006 · Kremlin
  • The extra cost was "not so huge" and Lake Baikal would be preserved.
    President Putin, 25 October 2006 · Kremlin
  • Rail transport near Baikal was riskier than the pipeline.
    Russian Railways (Vladimir Yakunin), Tomsk meeting · Kremlin

Recorded

  • PortNews reported the 25 October 2006 statement under the headline "Pacific oil pipeline project to cost extra $1 billion – Putin".
    PortNews
  • The decision was taken by the President at a regional meeting in Tomsk on 26 April 2006; the route was later approved by the Prime Minister in February 2008.
    Kremlin
  • The state ecological expertise moved from a negative conclusion (24 January 2006) to a positive one (3 March 2006) after the commission was enlarged by 34 experts; Kommersant reported that four votes were missing to block approval.
    Kommersant Vlast
  • Greenpeace Russia, IFAW Russia and WWF Russia prepared a report on the pipeline's harm for Transneft's potential lenders.
    Lenta.ru
  • The day before the decision, Transneft said it had secured a construction loan from Sberbank; no amount was given.
    Lenta.ru
  • The state environmental watchdog had endorsed the plan to lay the pipe less than a kilometre from the lake shore shortly before the decision (RFE/RL).
    RFE/RL

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

Not published
No figure published.

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Extra cost of the reroute, as stated by the President$1bn
Window: 2006
Statement of 25 October 2006.
First-stage cost before and after (Kommersant, 2008)$11.2bn
Window: 2008
Up from $6,650m; the increase is not wholly attributed to the reroute.
Currency: USD · Window: Mixed — see each line. Figures cover different periods and are not compared as a ratio. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

  • Transneft (26 April 2006): Vice-president Sergey Grigoryev said Transneft's reaction was extremely positive, as a line had finally been drawn under the issue; Vainshtok said Transneft had been totally convinced its shorter route was safe. · Oil & Gas Journal
  • Ministry of Natural Resources (2005): Press secretary Rinat Gizatulin said in 2005 that the ministry would not obstruct the fastest approval. · Lenta.ru
  • Russian Railways (26 April 2006): Vladimir Yakunin argued at the Tomsk meeting that rail transport near Baikal is riskier than the pipeline. · Kremlin

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

  1. 2006–2006Claimant won
    State ecological expertise of the ESPO feasibility study
    Rostekhnadzor, state ecological expertise commission · Regulatory · Transneft (project applicant) → Rostekhnadzor expertise commission

    Negative conclusion on 24 January 2006; after the commission was enlarged by 34 experts it voted 58 for and 26 against, and the positive conclusion was signed on 3 March 2006. Kommersant Vlast

  2. 2006Defendant won
    Supreme Court review of the government resolution of 31 December 2004 authorising ESPO
    Supreme Court of the Russian Federation · Administrative · Applicant not named → Government of the Russian Federation

    On 9 March 2006 the Supreme Court found the government resolution lawful. Kommersant Vlast

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Original route distance from the shore
≈ 800 m
Northern Baikal shore, per the Kremlin transcript
Maximum oil reaching the central zone
≤ 170 kg
Transneft's own modelling, presented at Tomsk
Extra cost stated by the President
$1 billion
25 October 2006
Reroute decision
North of the catchment
26 April 2006

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
Court ruling exists

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.
  • Disputed State ecological expertise of the pipeline route
  • Disputed Risk of oil reaching Lake Baikal

Accounts

Record

  • Not disclosed Not disclosed: the share of the first-stage cost increase attributable to the reroute. The President stated an additional $1 billion; Kommersant (2008) reported the first-stage cost rising from $6.65 billion to $11.2 billion without attributing all of it to the reroute.
  • Disputed Figures differ: Vainshtok gave the first-stage cost at Tomsk as 6,650 million rubles in second-quarter 2004 prices (Kremlin transcript); press reports gave $6.6 billion for the first stage and $11.5 billion in total (Lenta.ru).
  • Disputed Figures differ: the distance the route was moved is given as more than 40 km (Oil & Gas Journal, RFE/RL), "maybe 200 km north" (Putin, via Lenta.ru) and about 500 km longer in total (Kommersant, 2008).
  • Not measured Not measured: harm to the Baikal catchment from the pipeline; the route was not built there. The 170 kg figure is Transneft's own modelling estimate.

Did the harm stop?

Putin ordered the pipeline moved north of the Baikal catchment on 26 April 2006, and construction started on 28 April 2006; the route was approved in February 2008.

Who paid?

Transneft, a state-owned company, carried the project cost; the President stated the reroute would cost an additional $1 billion.

Sources

Voices on record: — Company or project✓ Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

Government and regulators

Press and investigations

  1. For protection of the surrounding pipe
    Kommersant Vlast · 2006-04-10
  2. Empty pipe
    Kommersant · 2008-03-24
  6. Putin changes Siberia-Pacific oil line route
    Oil & Gas Journal · 2006-04-26

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
Terms used on this page

Science and environment

Hectare (ha)
A unit of area equal to 10,000 square metres, about 2.5 acres. 100 hectares make one square kilometre.