[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

When gas is not so nature friendly





05 May 1997 

The Nation 

When gas is not so nature friendly 

Debate over the Burma gas pipeline project has been dominated by politics but 
there are serious environmental issues at stake, too. This is the first of a 
two-part series. 

It was hardly a surprise when Deputy Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and 
Industry Minister Korn Dabbaransi recently attacked environmental critics of 
the Yadana gas pipeline, claiming they were ''dancing to the tune of Burmese 
opposition groups". From the moment this project was thought up, it has been 
overwhelmed by politics on all sides. 

The pipeline, which will transport natural gas from Burma's Gulf of Martaban 
through Kanchanaburi province to a Thai power plant in Ratchaburi, has become 
the main symbol of Thailand's policy of constructive engagement. 

Opponents of Burma's ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council claim it 
will almost singlehandedly prop up the regime by supplying it with US$200 
million (Bt5.2 billion) in revenue. They also say human rights violations ­ 
including forced relocation of villages ­ were committed to clear the way for 
the pipeline. 

Supporters of the project ­ which is being carried out by France-based Total, 
US-based Unocal and the Petroleum Authority of Thailand's Exploration and 
Production Co (PTTEP) ­ respond that by fostering economic development in 
Burma, the pipeline and gas production agreement will eventually help lead to 
greater political openness. They deny any human rights abuses have occurred, 
claiming the developers have chipped in to improve the living standards of 
local people. 

These are important issues, of great interest to people all over the world. 
But there are also some crucial environmental issues surrounding the Yadana 
project. Gas is generally cleaner to burn than coal or oil, but producing it 
can be a dirty business, as shown in the Gulf of Thailand where Total and 
Unocal have admitted to dumping mercury into the sea. Building the pipeline 
will also cause problems, not just for Burmese and Thai people living along 
the route, but for Thailand as a whole and for anyone who cares about the 
survival of endangered species. 

Samak, who is supposed to be the administration's point man on the 
environment, is apparently unaware of this shows. But many Thai officials are 
in fact to blame. The pipeline project was first publicly proposed in 1990. 
The Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT), which is building the pipeline on 
the Thai side, has had seven years to study the environmental situation and 
prepare local villagers for the project. But it had accomplished neither task 
by the time its deadline for beginning construction arrived earlier this year. 


A technical hearing to gather local views was only organised at the last 
minute, and in a highly irregular move the Office of Environmental Policy and 
Planning (OEPP) approved the project on condition that the PTT would carry out 
further wildlife studies. 

When the state-owned PTT negotiated the contract to buy the natural gas 
several years ago, the Thai government was only concerned about two things: 
promoting economic links with Burma to justify the constructive engagement 
policy, and getting a cheap price for the gas. 

In its eagerness to complete the deal, the Thai government arguably subverted 
due process. First the PTT signed a contract ­ later accorded ''special 
approval" by the Cabinet, to use Korn's own words ­ which locked it into a 
schedule that threatens huge penalties if the Thai pipeline project is not 
finished on time. 

Then, in a non-transparent process, they agreed to build the pipeline based on 
Burmese specifications. The major considerations for the Burmese side were to 
make both the underwater pipeline ­ which is expensive ­ and the overland 
route, which is insecure, as short as possible. So the pipeline runs virtually 
due east from the Yadana field to Ban I-Tong, on the border in Kanchanaburi. 

Unfortunately, from there it has to pass through a 1A watershed region and a 
pristine forest that is home to several endemic and endangered species, 
including Kitti's hog-nosed bat ­ the world's smallest mammal, found only in 
the limestone caves around Sai Yoke National Park ­ and the Rajini crab. The 
area is also seismically active, adding another element of insecurity to the 
project. 

>From the Thai perspective, it would have been much better to bring the 
pipeline in at Ratchaburi's Suan Phung district, where it would have run a 
shorter distance, without passing through pristine forest, to the power plant. 


Once the entry point was decided, however, there was no avoiding damage to the 
forest. And the PTT has not explained how it plans to keep the illegal 
poachers, loggers and settlers from moving into the virgin forest, as they 
always do when it is opened up for development. 

The whole Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was called into question, not 
just by NGOs, but by the OEPP itself, whose expert committee rejected the 
report three times. Carried out by Team Engineering Consultants, the report 
was obviously lacking. It did not state what mitigation efforts the 
contractors would take to reduce the risk of landslides or the damage to 
forests and wildlife. 

The EIA also claimed the pipeline would not pose any threat to Kitti's 
hog-nosed bat or the Rajini crab, said Wildlife Fund Thailand's Suraphol 
Duangkhae, simply because when the consultants walked along the route, they 
didn't spot any of the endangered animals. But Suraphol did spot the bats when 
he followed the same route. Proper wildlife studies, he pointed out, can 
require years of work in the field. 

The PTT had the time to carry them out, but it didn't have a sense of urgency. 
The oil company knew the OEPP would succumb to political pressure and pass the 
EIA rather than cause a delay in construction that would force the payment of 
penalties. And that is exactly what happened. The OEPP meekly accepted the 
PTT's promise to carry out further studies, and passed the report to the 
National Environment Board, which approved it forthwith. 

Meanwhile, we simply don't know what the environmental situation is in Burma, 
as the area is off-limits to outsiders. 

What we do know is that the tense political and security situation in Burma 
has once again damaged Thailand: in physical terms, it has meant the pipeline 
will damage local forests more than necessary; and in social terms, the 
official obsession with constructive engagement has prevented the project from 
being carried out with proper public participation. 

In this light, the comments by Samak and Korn ­ which suggest it is okay to 
complain about social and environmental problems, but not about the political 
conflict which has exacerbated them ­ make even less sense. Everyone knew that 
the Yadana project would have profound implications for Burma, but it has also 
shown once and for all that the process for approving development projects in 
Thailand is broken, and must be fixed.