AnarWiki/markdown/Sakhalin_Anti-Oil_Movement.md

The **Sakhalin Anti-Oil Movement** was an
[indigenous](Indigenism "wikilink") and
[environmentalists](Environmentalism "wikilink") against the extraction
of [oil](Fossil_Fuels "wikilink") in Sakhalin,
[Russia](Russia "wikilink") from [2005 to
2007](Timeline_of_Libertarian_Socialism_in_Northern_Asia "wikilink").

## Background

Sakhalin is an island of the coast of eastern Russia and northern
[Japan](Japan "wikilink"). It is home to many indigenous people, and
contains large oil and gas reserves, extracting fossil fuels from the
island since 1997, and work on Sakhalin II (the largest oil and gas
project in the world) in 1999.

Many indigenous groups in the area, including the Nivkh community,
Sakhalin Evenks, the Sakhalin Nanai community, and the Uilta community,
wanted an evaluation of potential ecological damage and a cultural
impact assessment, as well as a compensation fund based on such an
assessment. Most of the groups in the area rely upon reindeer pastures,
rivers, and bays in order to subsist, and claimed that these had been
damaged by the oil extraction projects. Oil companies had destroyed
reindeer pastures and forests, as well as depleted fish populations via
offshore drilling. This left traditional handicrafts and jobs with the
oil companies themselves as the few sources of livelihoods in the area.
In October of 2004, a regional assembly of indigenous peoples decided
that direct action was necessary because the oil companies refused to
provide concrete project information or to engage in real dialogue with
indigenous peoples’ organizations. So in January 2005, the Sakhalin
Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, including the Nivkh
communities, Sakhalin Evenks, and the Sakhalin Nanaytsy community, as
well as the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North
(RAIPON) planned two picket lines (one source says RAIPON, backed by the
World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace organized and scheduled the
protests). They planned to shut down the Exxon Sakhalin I and the
Shell/Sakhalin Energy Sakhalin II facilities. Shell-led Sakhalin Energy
and Exxon Oil and Gas sent representatives to indigenous peoples’
settlements to persuade them not to participate in the protest. About 30
indigenous people were involved with different oil extraction projects
at the time. Company representatives threatened to fire these employees
if they chose to participate in the protests. Oil company security
squads were also sent to the Nogliki settlement to deter potential
protesters. Regardless, organizers planned to begin protests in the
Nogliki region of Sakhalin, while calling on oil companies to respond
legally and ethically.

On January 20, 2005, approximately 250 protesters marched through the
streets of the Venskoye settlement Nogliksky and held a meeting on the
sacred ground of the Nivkh. Representatives of the oil and gas companies
were invited, but did not attend. On January 21 and 22, the groups
picketed and blockaded the Exxon project, and then the Shell project on
January 23. 300 people attended the action, mostly comprised of the
Evenk, Nivkh, and Uilta indigenous groups. Political party
representatives and Sakhalin nongovernmental organizations such as Green
Patrol and Sakhalin Environment Watch also attended. Protesters held
banners with slogans such as “We demand a cultural impact assessment,”
“Stop the politics damaging the life of Sakhalin’s Evenks,” and “Fish
are our Wealth\!” One banner quoted Russian president Vladimir Putin
saying “Oil company people, you have to remember on whose land you are
working – Putin, Salekhard, 2004.”

Protesters also built bonfires and did traditional dances while in the
picket line. Some Exxon trucks attempted another route to the facility,
but one was overturned because the road was not meant for such large
vehicles (there were no injuries). The overturned truck stopped any
traffic that tried to reach the facility via the other route. This
happened 15 minutes after protesters participated in a Nivkh shamanic
ritual at the protest site. Some protesters took this as a sign from the
Nivkh gods. They also sent copies of the memorandum of demands to
regional and federal authorities (including President Putin), as well as
to the oil and gas companies involved. They demanded full inclusion in
all future decision-making processes with regards to the protection of
their land, traditional way of life, and socio-economic development. The
picket lines lasted through the 23rd.

Protesters held a press conference on January 24 in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, a
main city on Sakhalin. It was covered by much local, national, and
international press, but did not receive much television coverage
because there was a national protest over welfare benefits on the same
day.

Right before the protest, RAIPON-Sakhalin, the officially recognized
nongovernmental organization to represent the indigenous peoples, was
determined illegitimate by the Judicial Department. So, in March of
2005, organizers worked with indigenous peoples in Sakhalin to draft a
charter for a new group: “The Union of Indigenous Peoples of Sakhalin.”
They held elections to choose representatives for negotiations with the
gas and oil companies.

By June, oil and gas companies had still made no moves to recognize the
demands of the indigenous peoples, so protesters staged a second round
of protests at the end of June, coordinated with actions in London,
Moscow, and New York. On June 28, protesters closed down the road to the
Shell project once again, and closed down the road to the Exxon facility
on June 29.

Still, oil companies largely ignored the protesters’ demands. At that
time, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was
considering helping to finance Shell’s Sakhalin II project. The EBRD
opened up a 120-day comment period that would end on April 21, 2006,
after which they would come to a decision on whether or not to finance
the project. Hence, organizers expanded the campaign focus to pressure
the EBRD to deny Sakhalin II’s funding. In December of 2005, management
of the EBRD tried to convince the bank’s directors that the Sakhalin II
project met environmental and social standards.

On January 28, 2006, over 300 protesters blockaded Sakhalin Energy’s
giant liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant that was part of the Sakhalin II
project. The local government directly supported the action. Ivan
Malakhov, the governor of Sakhalin gave a speech at the protest site in
support of the protesters. Banners at the protest read: “Say NO to EBRD
financing\!”, “EBRD hands off Sakhalin II,” “Demanding re-calculation of
environmental damage\!”, “Fish are the main wealth of Sakhalin,” and
“Demanding transparency for public control.” Protesters also put
together two petitions, one of which was sent to the Russian government,
the Sakhalin governor and Sakhalin Energy CEO Ian Craig, demanding a
recalculation of the damage to fish stocks, as well as for the
establishment of a sanitary protection zone extending 3.5 km around each
project, instead of the existing 1 km zone. The second petition went to
the Board of Directors of the EBRD. This petition demanded that the EBRD
not fund Sakhalin II. Then on February 2, Governor Malakhov met with
officials from the EBRD to discourage them from investing in Sakhalin
II.

At this point, protesters had made some gains. Sakhalin Energy issued a
statement containing a plan to reduce the project’s environmental
impact, but said that further demonstrations would not “resolve the
concerns” of the protesters or facilitate dialogue. Sakhalin Energy was
also said to be working on a long-term Indigenous Peoples Development
Plan, though it was never released, if they indeed completed the study.
Additionally, a sacred site in the north part of the island was cleared
of oil extraction equipment and reseeded (the exact impetus for this is
unknown).

## Results

The project was closed in 2007 by the Rostekhnadzor, the state agency
responsible for industrial safety and environmental protection suspended
the construction of the Sakhalin II onshore pipelines because Shell was
constructing them through an active seismic fault. Funding was later
withdrawn from the amount of delays, making it ambiguous if the campaign
was effective.