Content uploaded by Eugene A. Simonov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eugene A. Simonov on Aug 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Power of Siberia-2 Pipeline: Possible
Consequences for Russia, Mongolia,
China and Natural Heritage
Sukhgerel Dugersuren, Director,
RwB Mongolia
Eugene Simonov
RwB International Coordinator
August 2021
Putin called Russia “energy superpower”
•It supplies gas
from Yamal to
Europe
•It seeks to supply
gas from Yamal
to China as well
/
Thinking around 2014
World
Heritage Site
Altai Pipeline was stalled for two decades
•Direct route to China’s Xinjiang led through the
“Golden Mountains of Altai” World Heritage
Property and through high mountainous terrain. It
became a major battle for NGOS and indigenous
peoples of Russia.
•Indirect routes either through Mongolia or
Kazakhstan were against Russia’s will to avoid
intermediaries.
•China was hesitant to invest in such construction as it
had many alternative pipelines coming from
Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries
In 2013 China Declares the BRI
In North Eurasia the BRI serves mostly trade and
investment in fossil fuels.
Mongolia sells coal and oil; Russia- oil, gas and
coal; Central Asian countries –gas and oil.
BRI promotes
“connectivity”, thus
making
involvement of
other countries
more desirable
Steppe Road of Mongolia
President Elbegdorj declared this program for
development of transit gas&oil pipelines, aqueducts,
modern railways, high-voltage powerlines from Russia to
China via Mongolia and soon the concept of “China-
Mongolia-Russia BRI Economic Corridor” was born.
August 2014 Proposals Prepared by Mongolia Ministry
of Economic Development for Trilateral Negotiations
Pipeline through Ulaan
Baatar to Beijing was
proposed along the route of
planned “Northern Rail”
which helps to circumvent
Lake Baikal bottleneck
Pipeline route shown as dark green
line on the map above and in blue
on the right. This is the only
specific route proposal known to
the public, but likely outdated
Meanwhile by 2019 Russia built “Power of Siberia” pipeline from
new gas fields north of Lake Baikal to North-Eastern China with
export capacity of 38 billion cubic meters per year.
Advantages voiced by proponents:
•Supply of cleaner transitional fuel to China, Mongolia,
Siberian Cities reducing CO2 emissions compared to
coal.
•Solution to air pollution problems in the urban
centers by replacing old coal generation
•Gaining efficient maneuvering electricity plants which
enable better integration of wind and solar in energy
systems and reduce need to build hydropower plants
•New long-term economic gains for Russia and
Mongolia (as transit country), energy security in the
most important urban centers of Eastern China
Emerging Issues:
•Pipeline may cross sensitive natural areas in
Russia and Mongolia, e.g. Lake Baikal World
Heritage Property or Tunkinsky National Park.
•Pipeline may affect migratory animals (e.g.
Mongolian Gazelle)
•Construction route may fragment pastures of
local semi-nomadic herders in Mongolia;
•The project may result in greater dependence of
Mongolia (and China) on Russian hydrocarbon
supplies, which will decrease incentives for
transfer to non-fossil economy;
•Although urgency of “Altai Pipeline” decreased,
it is not clear whether it was removed from
consideration (UNESCO asked Russia to clarify).
Is this the road we want to take?
Thank you for your attention!
Related texts:
•Threats of Oil and Gas Pipeline Construction (Baikal in Crisis, Elsevier, 2021)
•The Baikal Natural Territory (BNT) is located along important transport routes
such as the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Baikal-Amur Mainline (BAM).
Therefore, there are frequent proposals to improve, expand, and even construct
new linear infrastructure on the BNT. The most heated debates are caused by oil
and gas pipeline construction projects that have come up regularly over the past
20 years.
•On July 17, 2001, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and Chinese President
Jiang Zemin signed an agreement on the development of a “feasibility study” for
the Angarsk-Daqing gas pipeline planned by Yukos, a private company, and the
China National Petroleum Corporation. This led the Committee to immediately
request an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The oil pipeline was to run
through the Tunkinsky National Park and cross several rivers flowing into Lake
Baikal. The project received a negative environmental impact assessment. At the
same time the ESPO (East Siberia-Pacific Ocean) oil pipeline project began to be
implemented, which was promoted by the state-owned Transneft Corporation
with full support from the government. The project reached the pre-construction
stage on the Northern coast of Lake Baikal. Russian NGOs have effectively
coordinated a risk prevention protest campaign along the entire pipeline route
from Irkutsk Oblast to Primorsky Territory. The Committee’s firm intention to
inscribe Lake Baikal on the List of World Heritage in Danger and opinions from
independent experts in 2006 led the Russian President to map an alternative
route on the map, hundreds of kilometers north of the lake. Nevertheless, new
oil and gas pipeline projects were considered later.
Threats of Oil and Gas Pipeline Construction (Baikal in
Crisis, Elsevier, 2021)-2
In 2018–2019 Russia, Mongolia and China have been investigating a new
route for the gas pipeline through Mongolia. In March 2020, the President
of Russia instructed Gazprom to develop a feasibility study and by fall 2020
Gazprom has signed a Memorandum of Intent with counterparts in
Mongolia to establish a subsidiary company to advance the pipeline project.
Since UNESCO's World Heritage values and related legal obligations are not
taken into account by planners and engineers, the gas pipeline route
through the Lake Baikal World Heritage property is considered one of the
best options — convenient for supplying gas to the pipeline not only from
fields in Western Siberia, but also from the Kovykta Field located west of
Baikal. The project may affect the Lake Baikal World Heritage property or
other areas of the Baikal Natural Territory. Construction of this massive
infrastructure across terrain will alter natural landscapes, while attempts to
build it along existing transportation routes may increase risks of major
accidents. Some scientists suggested to build such pipeline on the Lake
Baikal bottom, where construction may cause major disturbance in benthic
ecosystems.
RwB and Greenpeace –Report to UNESCO-2020
Re-alignment of “Altai” pipeline
In 2018-2019 the Russian leadership expressed
intention to officially re-align Altai Pipeline project,
thus sparing “Golden Mountains of Altai” World
Heritage Property from dissection (See minutes from
Putin’s meeting with Gazprom CEO Miller, as well as
reporting from China, Mongolia and Russia). The World
Heritage has been never officially mentioned among
reasons for realignment.
Russia, Mongolia and China are exploring an
alternative route through Mongolia and initial
economic assessment of options is due by June 2020.
The advantages are 1000 km shorter pipe to centers of
consumption in China and flat terrain easy for
construction. Most routes of oil and gas pipelines
proposed in the region in the past crossed Baikal
Nature Territory and the World Heritage Site. It would
be even more logical if it taps the Kovyktinskoye and
other deposits west of Lake Baikal. Thus, a special
study commissioned by TNK-BP Co. and NGOs in 2007
to assess transportation options has considered several
routes across Baikal Natural territory (see map below).
Some prominent members of academia also have
supported the pipeline traversing the Lake bottom in
the past.
Pic. . Potential route of the
“Power of Siberia II” Pipeline.
2020
Source:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/I
nternational-relations/Russia-
renews-interest-in-Mongolia-to-
counter-Chinese-influence
RwB and Greenpeace –Report to UNESCO-2020-2
Buryatia and Zabaikalsky provincial authorities are as desperate for getting gas as the Mongolian Government and China’s East
Coast. Each party justifies need by “environmental crisis in cities” caused by air pollution. Only some NGOs and scientists doubt
practicability to link new regions to gas supply, given climate change challenges and need for de-carbonization. There is little
doubt, that for a new pipeline that traverses Mongolia (third parties have not been considered before in pipeline planning) the
route crossing Lake Baikal area will be considered as one of winners among available alternatives, if World Heritage values and
obstacles are not considered. The route fits both domestic and international request for gasification of priority regions at the
least possible cost. Therefore it is extremely important that potential risks associated with impacts on the OUVs of the WH
property are well understood and considered by planners at the earliest options assessment phase before summer 2020.
We request that the World Heritage Center as soon as possible urges Russia, Mongolia and China to avoid harm to OUVs of the
Lake Baikal (and any other WH property), to undertake SEA to consider options that do not affect World Heritage Sites and to
report to The Committee on incorporating heritage assessment into pipeline planning.
We also recommend that in the same letter the Committee congratulates Russia on its intention to spare “Golden Mountains of
Altay” from being crossed by pipeline and asks for official confirmation that this risk has been removed from that WH property. In
particular it is worth asking whether preliminary MOU on the “Western route” (aka Altai pipeline) signed in 2015 between China
and Russia state companies is still valid
Pic. . Baikal Gas pipeline
Route options (Map by
Transparent World NGO.
2007)
See report
http://www.transparentworld.
ru/f/eco/gas_oil/kovykta/Kovy
kta_Integr_Report_2007-07-
13_full.pdf
RwB and Greenpeace –Report to UNESCO-2020-3
After assurance from Mongolian and
Chinese presidents, Putin asked
Gazprom to revise alignment of the
Altay pipeline and link it to gas
deposits in Irkutsk Region
https://www.gazprom.com/press/new
s/2019/september/article487348/
Since 2006 gas pipeline was proposed
to cross the Lake Baikal World Heritage
property several times, which is
reflected in many reports by local
media: https://www.baikal-
media.ru/news/society/362992/; https://www.baikal-
media.ru/news/silkway/352536/?sphrase_id=4916966
6; https://m.baikal-media.ru/news/health/77212/;
http://www.magicbaikal.ru/ecology/gas-pipeline.htm;
http://babr24.com/baik/?ADE=32881;
http://i38.ru/baykal-kommenti/gazoprovod-po-dnu-
baykala-uzhrozhaet-li-ekologii-ozera-novaya-truba-
mneniya-irkutskich-ekspertov.
Pic. . Deposits’ location on
Gazprom web-site
Gazprom evidence:
•June 2, 2021
•Alexey Miller and Battsetseg Batmunkh, Mongolia’s
Foreign Minister, discuss Soyuz Vostok project
•On December 5, 2019, Gazprom and the Government
of Mongolia signed a Memorandum of Understanding.
The document provides for a joint assessment of the
feasibility of the project for pipeline gas supplies from
Russia to China across Mongolia. In April 2021, the
feasibility analysis regarding the construction project
for the Soyuz Vostok gas trunkline was approved.
Gazprom evidence-2
•April 12, 2021
•Feasibility analysis approved for Soyuz Vostok gas
pipeline construction project
•This is indicated in the action plan of the Joint
Working Group of Gazprom and the Government
of Mongolia. The feasibility study is being
prepared by the Gazoprovod Soyuz Vostok
special-purpose vehicle. Background In December
2019, Gazprom and the Government
of Mongolia signed a Memorandum
of Understanding.
Gazprom evidence-3
•January 22, 2021
•Gazoprovod Soyuz Vostok company registered
in Mongolia
•The company was established with the purpose
of performing design and survey works and conducting
a feasibility study regarding the construction project
for a gas trunkline to supply Russian gas across
Mongolia to China. “With the Soyuz Vostok gas
pipeline, Russia's Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline will
extend through Mongolia, and its export capacity
might become more than 1.3 times higher than that
of Power of Siberia .
Gazprom evidence-4
•August 25, 2020
•Gazprom and Mongolian Government sign
Memorandum of Intent
•A working meeting between Alexey Miller ,
Chairman of the Gazprom Management
Committee, and Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh, Prime
Minister of Mongolia, took place today via
a video call. Mongolia. Photo by RIA Novosti The
parties discussed the prospects of cooperation
on the project for pipeline gas supplies from
Russia to China across Mongolia.
MONTSAME evidence
•Ulaanbaatar /MONTSAME/. On March 11, Deputy Prime Minister and
Head of a working group in charge of gas pipeline construction project
S. Amarsaikhan held a meeting with delegates led by Deputy Chairman
of the Management Committee and Member of the BoD of Gazprom
Company Vitaly Markelov.
•The meeting approved an action plan of the working group for the gas
pipeline construction to run through Mongolia. As reflected in the
plan, detailed feasibly study for the gas pipeline will be completed by
the third quarter of this year, intensifying the special-purpose
company's activities.
•According to the press representative of the Deputy Prime Minister,
the action plan delineates the responsibilities and roles of the sides of
the group and will help accelerate the gas pipeline construction
project's progress.
No evidence in China?
•No solid evidence available in 2021 that China considers
participation in the Soyuz-Vostok pipeline project.
•Reporting only from Montsame:
Foreign Minister B. Battsetseg, during her visit to PRC, held
official talks on July 27,2021 with the State Councilor and
Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi in Tianjin city.
Talks touched on a wide range of issues on Mongolia-China
bilateral relations and regional and international
cooperation. Confirming that both Mongolia and China
attach great importance to the development of trilateral
cooperation of Mongolia, Russia and China, the sides vowed
to provide support to entities from the three countries in
order to bring forward the building of trilateral economic
corridor and the development of feasibility study for the
Russia-China gas pipeline to transit through Mongolia.
https://montsame.mn/en/read/270797